Their View: So here's the deal

Their View: So here's the deal

There are 19 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from May 16, 2011, titled Their View: So here's the deal. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

So here's the deal. Does it bother you when government workers get in trouble and are placed on administrative leave with pay? You read about it all the time.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

Keep out traditions

Las Cruces, NM

#1 May 16, 2011
A person is not guilty of a crime until he or she is convicted or pleads guilty in a court of law. It's been an American tradition for more than 200 years and I reject your call for RADICAL change to our way of governance.
East Mesa Resident

Brighton, MI

#2 May 16, 2011
Keep out traditions wrote:
A person is not guilty of a crime until he or she is convicted or pleads guilty in a court of law. It's been an American tradition for more than 200 years and I reject your call for RADICAL change to our way of governance.
I agree that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So applying your logic, why do we keep people in local jails for months or even years in some instances when the person has yet to appear in court?

I used to work at a County Jail and it always intrigued me that "innocent" people were being detained against their will until they were convicted. Some of those people really needed to be locked up as they were a menance to society or a flight risk, but others maybe not.

I understand that the practice of locking people up until they are actually convicted dates back probably to the days of the ancient Eygptians or even further back in time. But I've always wondered why?
LC Today

Brighton, MI

#3 May 16, 2011
Cantwell, if you would actually jump on the picnic table because a small lizard scurries by, there definitely is something wrong with you.

On second thought, even without the lizard, there is something wrong with you.
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#4 May 16, 2011
East Mesa Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So applying your logic, why do we keep people in local jails for months or even years in some instances when the person has yet to appear in court?
I used to work at a County Jail and it always intrigued me that "innocent" people were being detained against their will until they were convicted. Some of those people really needed to be locked up as they were a menance to society or a flight risk, but others maybe not.
I understand that the practice of locking people up until they are actually convicted dates back probably to the days of the ancient Eygptians or even further back in time. But I've always wondered why?
Hard to believe you worked at tha jail and never heard of an arraignment.

We keep people in jail or under bond to assure their presence, not as punishment.
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#5 May 16, 2011
We in America, and befor that, at least since the signing of the Magna Carta have been of the opinion that the punishment should follow the investigation and trial.
The notion that cutting off pay for "months" is not yet punishment is absurd. After months of no pay and no way to get another job, one can be fully vindicated and still have lost home, car, and credit, and a destitute family. It should be noted that under this ill-thought bit of pique the family wouldn't be eligible for food stamps because the bread winner is tecnically still employed, and they would be cut off from health insurance because that is part of pay package.

I don't believe Mr Cantwell is evil, just that he types far faster than he thinks.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#6 May 16, 2011
Keep out traditions wrote:
A person is not guilty of a crime until he or she is convicted or pleads guilty in a court of law. It's been an American tradition for more than 200 years and I reject your call for RADICAL change to our way of governance.
I think the point was why are the accused on administrative leave with pay in the meantime? Is this how things are done in the private sector?
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#7 May 16, 2011
Fed Up in NM wrote:
<quoted text>I think the point was why are the accused on administrative leave with pay in the meantime? Is this how things are done in the private sector?
If you have a contract, yes.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#8 May 16, 2011
In the real world wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have a contract, yes.
Wow, did not realize that. Where I've worked, if you are being investigated for something you are put on unpaid leave. If cleared, you are paid retroactively.
East Mesa Resident

Brighton, MI

#9 May 16, 2011
In the real world wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to believe you worked at tha jail and never heard of an arraignment.
We keep people in jail or under bond to assure their presence, not as punishment.
I've heard of arraignment, but I've seen it take as much as 6 months to get in front of a judge. Being "under bond" doesn't necessily assure anyone's presence, just look at the Bounty Hunters (like "Dog" on A&E).

I know that 99.9 percent of people in jail need to be there to protect society in general. It just has always seemed interesting to me that we proclaim 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law', and then we lock them up for months at a time until they get their trial.
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#10 May 16, 2011
Fed Up in NM wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, did not realize that. Where I've worked, if you are being investigated for something you are put on unpaid leave. If cleared, you are paid retroactively.
Interesting that you would asked the question
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#11 May 16, 2011
East Mesa Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard of arraignment, but I've seen it take as much as 6 months to get in front of a judge. Being "under bond" doesn't necessily assure anyone's presence, just look at the Bounty Hunters (like "Dog" on A&E).
I know that 99.9 percent of people in jail need to be there to protect society in general. It just has always seemed interesting to me that we proclaim 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law', and then we lock them up for months at a time until they get their trial.
Arraignment "must" occur within 72 hous of arrest. How did you come to know 99.9 percent of people in jail, and remain so ignorant of the procedures that got them there?

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#12 May 16, 2011
In the real world wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that you would asked the question
Why is that interesting that I would ask the question?
In the real world

Las Cruces, NM

#13 May 16, 2011
Fed Up in NM wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that interesting that I would ask the question?
because you claim to know the answer

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#14 May 16, 2011
In the real world wrote:
<quoted text>
because you claim to know the answer
No, I don't know the answer. I just know how things were in the few non-government companies I've worked for. It seems to be common practice in the government jobs but up to each company in the private sector. Since it is tax dollars that are paying the accused until judgement is made, it doesn't seem right.
Clarke

Las Cruces, NM

#15 May 16, 2011
Fed Up in NM wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't know the answer. I just know how things were in the few non-government companies I've worked for. It seems to be common practice in the government jobs but up to each company in the private sector. Since it is tax dollars that are paying the accused until judgement is made, it doesn't seem right.
You have a point, though it does seem that putting the punishment before the investigation, as the editorial suggests, is at odds with our precepts of fairness. Also it should be noted that with fines and restitution in the case of a guilty finding the cost is moot. There is also the idea that paid leave prompts a quicker investigation while unpaid provides a disincentive to prompt resolution.
Clarke

Las Cruces, NM

#16 May 16, 2011
East Mesa Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So applying your logic, why do we keep people in local jails for months or even years in some instances when the person has yet to appear in court?
I used to work at a County Jail and it always intrigued me that "innocent" people were being detained against their will until they were convicted. Some of those people really needed to be locked up as they were a menance to society or a flight risk, but others maybe not.
I understand that the practice of locking people up until they are actually convicted dates back probably to the days of the ancient Eygptians or even further back in time. But I've always wondered why?
So, working at the county jail you would have no problem with not being paid for "months" if an inmate accused you of assalt? That is what the editorial suggests, you get nothing until you prove your innocent.
( if you really worked at the jail you would probably know that the majority of inmates are awaiting trial, and have yet to be found guilty of anything)
East Mesa Resident

Brighton, MI

#17 May 16, 2011
Clarke wrote:
<quoted text>
So, working at the county jail you would have no problem with not being paid for "months" if an inmate accused you of assalt? That is what the editorial suggests, you get nothing until you prove your innocent.
( if you really worked at the jail you would probably know that the majority of inmates are awaiting trial, and have yet to be found guilty of anything)
I really did work in a jail, but I was not one of the Detention Officers. I had no interaction with the inmates themselves, just their records. I also know that the majority of the inmates are waiting for trial, some wait months, a few I saw waited almost 3 years. Whether that delay was caused by the DA's Office or their lawyer I can't say. One of them finally got his trial after 39 months, and was found Not Guilty. That doesn't happen often, as the majority of inmates are guilty.

I'm not agreeing with the editorial as I think Ned Cantwell is about 51 cards short of a full deck and always has been in the 25 plus years I've known him. I'm just saying that I think it is a intriguing part of our society that locks up the "accused" until they are proven guilty. It is a very old practice that seems to put caution above anything else.
Ex El Paso res

Las Cruces, NM

#18 May 17, 2011
In the real world wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have a contract, yes.
Most employment in the private sector is "at will" and not contract.

More than likely you will not be compenstated for your time away from the job if you are accused and found guilty (if you cannot preform your job due to the charges).

If the crime directly relates to your job and you are found guilty you are out the door!!!

As a taxpayer why to I have to pay for the misdeeds of someone else.

In New Mexico we get to do this all the time and even get to pay settlements for indivdual's misdeeds.

We all got to pay a settlement for the sexual harrasment that our State Attorney General was accussed of so it would not go to trial.

Not saying he was guilty but why should the tax payers pay for this to prevent it from going to trial? If he was not guilty than a trial should not have been an issue.

As a tax payer this offends me.
Clarke

Las Cruces, NM

#19 May 17, 2011
Ex El Paso res wrote:
<quoted text>
Most employment in the private sector is "at will" and not contract.
More than likely you will not be compenstated for your time away from the job if you are accused and found guilty (if you cannot preform your job due to the charges).
If the crime directly relates to your job and you are found guilty you are out the door!!!
As a taxpayer why to I have to pay for the misdeeds of someone else.
In New Mexico we get to do this all the time and even get to pay settlements for indivdual's misdeeds.
We all got to pay a settlement for the sexual harrasment that our State Attorney General was accussed of so it would not go to trial.
Not saying he was guilty but why should the tax payers pay for this to prevent it from going to trial? If he was not guilty than a trial should not have been an issue.
As a tax payer this offends me.
As you say "found guilty", that was not the proposal of the editorial.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bernalillo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 3 hr Mister Chix 62,236
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 4 hr buffaloes 113,085
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 5 hr justice is just a... 6,896
News NM confronts budget shortfalls amid oil bust 5 hr The truth 3
News Elephant Butte Lake shrinking faster thana 5 hr The truth 9
News Criminal complaint details brutal slaying of Ne... 5 hr The truth 1
News U-Haul stolen in Albuquerque during family's cr... 6 hr The Green Watch Dog 13

Bernalillo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bernalillo Mortgages