Chief Justice Paul Reiber at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, photo by Tom McNeill

I wanted to follow-up with a couple extra items that did not make it into the story this week about Chief Justice Paul Reiber’s campaigning against the war on drugs.

– While Reiber has said that he is speaking out as an administrator concerned about the burdens being placed on the judicial docket, his speeches seem to reflect a deeper allegiance to people trying to reform the criminal justice system. At Vermont Law School’s Innovative Criminal Justice Practices Conference, Reiber even started giving advice to proponents for change.

For example, he urged them to avoid a lot of the jargon that they casually use: The conference was full of talk of  “co-occurring disabilities” and the “sequential intercept model.” Reiber said that such language would make the people they are trying to help feel more despair, and believe that only the government and trained professionals can help them.

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Mark Davis was a Seven Days staff writer 2013-2018.

8 replies on “Reporter’s Notebook: Chief Justice Also Campaigns Against Insider-Speak”

  1. ““The classic approach of ‘tough on crime’ is not working in this area of drug policy.” says Reiber…. I would respond, how do you know? This state has NEVER been tough on crime. Just look at the guy a few months ago who was convicted of DUI 11, he served 4 months on his 10th for pete’s sake when state law allows a maximum of 5 years, how is that tough on crimer? The state record… 17 DUI’s, guy got LIFE after being charged as a habitual offender… Life sentenance, he was out 3 freaking years later. How is that tough on crime Justice Reiber?
    Consider the young woman who not only was convicted of grand larceny 5-6 months ago who also had a long history of crime… Grand Larceny carries a 10 year max prison sentence, she recieved 1.5 years. She’ll be out much sooner. But you think giving 10% of the allowable sentence for someone with a lengthy criminal history is tough on crime?
    If you think this state is tough on crime you sir are delusional.

  2. On the other hand, have you read about the Heady Topper bust where some woman was reselling it on Craig’s list? How many years should she get? Not every crime merits the maximum penalty.

  3. True, but should a guy really get 4 months of a max 5 years for his 10th DUI? You can’t call that tough on crime, and that women is only charged with a misdemeanor… with no prior record. She will get a fine. She should probably get some community service, but she’s a lawyer so she is already doing that likely anyways…

  4. “but should a guy really get 4 months of a max 5 years for his 10th DUI?”
    I’d say “no”.
    We have judges so that (among other things) a wise person can craft the best sentence for a given offender. If all we hand out are maximums, we might as well have a computer program do it.
    But really we are back to the WAR ON DRUGS, which has been going on since the Nixon administration. The only lasting contributions to society from this war have been :
    1).The hollowing out of the Bill of Rights in the name of stopping drugs.
    2.) Prisons filled to bursting with young men, disproportionately black men.
    3.) Junkie crime waves that wouldn’t exist if they could get a safe and legal fix.
    4.) Thriving drug syndicates and their brutal operations.
    5.) Militarization of our police forces to the point where your average SWAT team would look right at home in a Star Wars movie.

  5. I’m not so sure that because a judge is appointed to the bench by a governor… any governor… that necessarily means their wise.
    Reiber, wise or not, has no justification to say being “tough on crime” hasn’t worked, because simply put this state has NEVER been tough on crime. If Joe drunk was getting 3 of 5 years for his 10th DUI he may have a point, but the sentenancing that occurs in VT is hardly “tough on crime.”
    Our judicial system hasn’t worked… but that is more likely because they absolutely aren’t tough on crime… that and the state sucks at treating mental disorders including addiction.

  6. Reiber speaking out is possibly an indicator that the elite who make the actual laws we live under are beginning to rethink the drug war.

  7. I don’t care about the drug war. If a bunch of high hippies is what this state wants then go ahead and legalize it. Until then the Judiciary and Reiber could try to actually be “tough on crime” and see if that helps, because the pansy hand holding approach isnt working

Comments are closed.