Cayla Plasse was placed on probation for one year pursuant to a continuation without a finding of guilt for stealing five video games from Walmart. She was found in violation seven times for myriad issues, including positive drugs screens, leaving a treatment program, termination from sober houses, and absconding for thirteen months (Tr. 4-7). Throughout this period of probation, however, she lived in the community for three years without picking up any new criminal charges (Tr. 7).

At the final violation and revocation hearing, the judge imposed a sentence of two years in the house of correction - the maximum permissible under the statute for the underlying crime and more than either party recommended. In imposing the sentence, the judge stated:

So, I am going to deviate from both recommendations. I'm going to do so not to punish her but to make sure that she gets through a program and is back out on the street safe and alive.

(Tr. 12). The judge thus made clear that h e was increasing the term of incarceration for the sole purpose of "treatment" in a house of correction.

Although well-intended, this sentencing decision was unlawful. Judges have n o authority to sentence an -2- offender to a term of incarceration solely for the offender's own welfare. To be sure, sentencing judges are well advised to inform the Sheriff's Office or Department of Correction of an offender's medical or treatment needs. But judges can only recommend treatment or placement in a particular correctional facility; they have no power to require or ensure that incarcerated offenders who need or might benefit from treatment will in fact receive it. It was thus improper for the judge in this case to increase the defendant's term of incarceration solely for the non- punitive purpose of making sure that she got through a treatment program over which the judicial branch has no control or authority.

Furthermore, in view of the reality of jail and prison life, sentencing a n offender to more time in order to "help" her reflects a serious misapprehension of the risks that incarceration poses to an inmate's well-being, health, and safety. All jails and prisons are designed to punish, deter, and isolate offenders from society. Although medical and psychiatric treatment may be provided to inmates who are assessed in need, and rehabilitation programs may be available to inmates on a limited basis, jails and prisons are not the same as treatment facilities. To the contrary, they pose serious risks to a person's emotional and physical well-being, and can actually hinder, rather than help, recovery and treatment.

This Court should therefore make clear that it is impermissible for a sentencing judge to increase an offender's term of incarceration solely for the purpose of seeking to ensure that the offender receives treatment while incarcerated.

Summary

Ms. Cayla Plasse was placed on probation for one year following a finding of guilt for stealing video games. During this period, she incurred seven violations, including positive drug screens, premature departure from treatment programs, termination from sober living environments, and thirteen months of absconding. Despite these issues, she resided in the community for three years without facing new criminal charges. At her final hearing, the judge imposed a two-year sentence in a house of correction, representing the maximum permissible term and exceeding the recommendations of both parties. The judge explicitly stated the intention was "not to punish her but to make sure that she gets through a program and is back out on the street safe and alive," thus indicating an increase in incarceration duration for the purpose of treatment.

This sentencing decision, while potentially well-intentioned, was deemed unlawful. Judges lack the authority to impose a term of incarceration solely for an offender's welfare. Although judicial officers may recommend medical or treatment needs to correctional authorities, they cannot mandate or guarantee that incarcerated individuals will receive specific treatment. Therefore, increasing an offender's term of incarceration solely for a non-punitive objective, such as ensuring participation in a treatment program over which the judiciary has no control, is inappropriate. Moreover, correctional facilities are primarily designed for punishment, deterrence, and isolation, not as dedicated treatment centers. Incarceration presents significant risks to an individual's emotional and physical well-being and can potentially impede, rather than support, recovery and treatment efforts.

Consequently, it is imperative for the Court to clarify that increasing an offender's term of incarceration exclusively to facilitate treatment while confined is impermissible.

Summary

Cayla Plasse was placed on probation for one year after a legal arrangement postponed a finding of guilt for stealing five video games. She violated her probation seven times due to various issues, including positive drug tests, leaving a treatment program, being removed from sober living houses, and disappearing for thirteen months. Despite these violations, she lived in the community for three years during this probation period without being charged with any new crimes.

At the final hearing regarding her violations, the judge ordered a two-year sentence in a correctional facility. This was the longest sentence allowed by law for the original crime and more than either side had recommended. In delivering the sentence, the judge stated:

So, I am going to deviate from both recommendations. I'm going to do so not to punish her but to make sure that she gets through a program and is back out on the street safe and alive.

The judge therefore indicated that the increased jail time was solely for the purpose of ensuring she received "treatment" in a correctional facility.

While perhaps well-intended, this sentencing decision was not legal. Judges do not have the authority to sentence an individual to jail solely for that person's own well-being. Judges can recommend that correctional staff be informed of a person's medical or treatment needs. However, judges can only suggest treatment or placement in a particular facility; they cannot demand or guarantee that incarcerated individuals needing treatment will actually receive it. Thus, it was incorrect for the judge to increase the length of the sentence solely for the non-punitive reason of ensuring the person completed a treatment program, which the judicial branch has no control over.

Moreover, considering the realities of jail and prison life, sentencing an individual to more time in order to "help" them shows a serious misunderstanding of the dangers that incarceration poses to a person's well-being, health, and safety. All jails and prisons are designed to punish, discourage future crime, and separate people from society. While some medical and mental health care, and limited rehabilitation programs, might be offered to individuals deemed in need, jails and prisons are not the same as treatment facilities. In fact, they can be dangerous to a person's emotional and physical health, possibly slowing down or preventing recovery and treatment.

Therefore, this Court should state clearly that it is not allowed for a sentencing judge to increase an individual's jail time just to try to guarantee that the individual receives treatment while incarcerated.

Summary

Cayla Plasse was placed on probation for one year after stealing five video games from Walmart. This was part of a legal arrangement where her guilt was not formally declared. During her probation, she broke the rules seven times. These violations included testing positive for drugs, leaving a treatment program, being removed from sober living homes, and disappearing for thirteen months. Despite these issues, she lived in the community for three years without facing any new criminal charges.

During the final hearing about her probation violations, the judge sentenced Ms. Plasse to two years in a house of correction. This was the longest sentence allowed by law for the original crime and was more time than either the prosecution or defense had suggested. When giving the sentence, the judge explained that the decision was not meant to punish her. Instead, the judge wanted to ensure she completed a program and could return to the community safely and alive. It was clear the judge increased the prison time specifically for her to receive "treatment" in a correctional facility.

Despite the judge's good intentions, this sentencing decision was against the law. Judges do not have the power to send someone to jail or prison solely for that person's own well-being. While judges can inform correctional facilities about an offender's need for medical or treatment services, they can only recommend treatment or placement. They cannot demand or guarantee that individuals in custody will actually receive the treatment they need. Therefore, it was wrong for the judge to increase the length of the sentence in this case, using the non-punitive goal of ensuring treatment that the courts have no control over.

Moreover, sending someone to jail or prison for a longer period to "help" them shows a serious misunderstanding of the dangers incarceration poses to a person's well-being, health, and safety. Jails and prisons are meant to punish, discourage future crimes, and keep offenders separate from society. While medical and mental health care might be offered to those who need it, and rehabilitation programs might be available to some, these facilities are not the same as dedicated treatment centers. In fact, they can create significant risks to a person's emotional and physical health, potentially making recovery and treatment more difficult rather than assisting it.

Therefore, this Court should clearly state that it is not permissible for a sentencing judge to increase a person's time in jail or prison solely to try and ensure they receive treatment while incarcerated.

Summary

Cayla Plasse was put on probation for one year. This happened after she took five video games from Walmart. A judge decided not to find her guilty right away. She broke the rules of her probation seven times. This included using drugs, leaving a special program, and being kicked out of sober homes. She also hid from the law for 13 months. But during this time, she lived in the community for three years without getting in trouble with the law again.

Later, at a court meeting, the judge sent her to jail for two years. This was the longest time allowed for her crime and more than anyone suggested. The judge said he was doing this not to punish her. He said it was to make sure she finished a program and could be safe and alive when she got out. The judge clearly said he was giving her more time in jail only so she could get "treatment" there.

This decision by the judge, even if meant to help, was against the law. Judges cannot send someone to jail just to help that person get better. Judges can tell the jail or prison about a person's health or treatment needs. But judges can only suggest treatment. They cannot make sure that people in jail get the help they need. So, it was wrong for the judge to give her more jail time just to make sure she finished a program. The judge has no power over these programs in jail.

Sending someone to jail for more time to "help" them also shows a misunderstanding of how jail can be harmful. Jails are made to punish people, stop them from doing more crimes, and keep them away from others. Jails might offer some medical or mental health help, or a few programs. But jails are not the same as places built for treatment. Instead, jails can cause big problems for a person's mind and body. They can make it harder for someone to get better, not easier.

The court should state clearly that judges cannot give someone more jail time just to make sure they get treatment while in jail.