Probation for Everything?

Sentencing in My City Doesn't Make Sense

I don’t live in a crime-ridden hell-hole, despite the reports about Minnesota. Yet, thanks to Spencer Pratt’s new highly effective political campaign, I wonder, “how does a city end up with problems like Los Angeles?”

Spencer Pratt’s videos about Los Angeles make his point, as did his debate last night. The point is that Los Angeles’s decline happened by choice, by leftist policy, and by lax law enforcement. Even on the way to his debate, he shot a quick video of what happens on the streets every day:

Pratt’s basic plan is to enforce the laws. Yet, he recognizes that he faces roadblocks with the city council, nonprofits, and judicial enforcement. He didn’t sound naïve about the problems, but he was motivated.

In fact, his outrage and demand for common sense inspired me to revisit how my city is doing. After all, a city doesn’t fall apart overnight. Rather, the slow decay of law and order hollows a city. When criminal or unwanted behavior is ignored, overspending is overlooked, and graft is the norm, the ability to do business or educate children is compromised. People move away. Stores shutter. Yet, decline is not unpreventable. Our only hope is in people willing to reinstitute law and order in a common sense manner.

Every American city needs a Prattman!

My city faces criticism of its law enforcement and prosecution. In fact, the repeat offenders, probation sentences, and early release issues in other areas of the country are also affecting my city too. The following case is often cited nationally to get people upset about how crime is prosecuted in Minnesota:

I ignore most of the racist, xenophobic takes. Some of the outrage is undermined by the facts of the case. Former District Attorney (DA), Mark Ostrem, explained that Mohamed Bakari Shei was initially charged in 2019 as a juvenile, but COVID-19 and refiling delayed his case until 2023. Later, his lawyer used an Alford plea, which includes no admission of guilt, but dismissal of a trial, because he would most likely be found guilty by trial. This type of plea is controversial. In this case, the judge was upset, presumably with the DA accepting this plea. So, some of the insanity of giving a 20 yo probation for child rape is explained by the factors of the case, but even the judge was disgusted with this plea agreement.

Despite this case being different, you would be wrong if you thought sex crime cases rarely receive probation in my city. The article above used this graph, showing most sex cases that year were dismissed or given probation.

While the former DA blames social media takes that overlook nuances, it seems more likely that people are mad because the justice system chose to protect the perpetrator over the victims. In the article, the DA seems willfully ignorant of the idea that probation is not enough punishment or deterrence for some crimes.

I reported on a different local case where a sex offender on probation forcibly raped a girl when she walked home from a local high school. He was living right by the high school: who was monitoring him? I couldn’t believe it, as the school did not inform any families. Yet, when I looked at other crimes, I saw a pattern of sex offenders getting probation, or short sentences. According to former DA Ostrem, “In a first time nonviolent sex offense, we are far better off to have somebody kept here in the community, keep them safe […] and have better assurance that our communities are safer than if we send them to prison.” Somehow, keeping sex offenders safe helps our community…do what exactly? Ostrem has since retired. The new DA reassured everyone that not much will change. Still, DA Michael Walters is running for this position in November 2026.

So, let’s see how things are going recently:

I guess they are still asking for probation for people charged with child pornography and juvenile prostitution (age 16-18). What else…

Well, this one makes sense, because many voters DO endorse lower prosecution of drug-related crimes. Except, he flipped his car and ran from the scene. That seems bad. Next…

He’s being tried for a shooting case, but he had been on probation. This seems to support a pattern of recidivism. Perhaps this “probation” tactic is not working? Also, I wonder if this is the guy arrested at the place my daughter works (she was not on shift). Next…

One guy was sentenced 2 years ago for child pornography distribution:

I’m sure we were keeping a great eye on him in the community, and it was totally safe

Still, he was caught and faces harsher sentencing: the system works! He’s a baddie, unlike the first time he disseminated child pornography. Why didn’t they get a warrant for his accounts at that point?

The criminal justice system has greatly impacted my life, so I have good reason to criticize excessive sentencing. However, supporters of softer prosecution sold policies to keep people out of prison for smoking a joint. We were promised that if we prosecuted fewer crimes of poverty (drug use, petty theft, prostitution), we would see positive economic growth and lower crime. In actuality, DAs and politicians enacted reduced enforcement of all laws, including crimes that most people think should result in prison, like sexual assault and child sex crimes. It’s a bait-and-switch: we voted for reasonable sentencing and got unreasonably reduced sentences. Now, criminals get probation for bad things. For instance:

If you help someone burn down businesses and flee the country, you get probation. Here’s a less flagrant case:

Don’t be fooled by the wording. This guy beat up someone and left them to bleed on the sidewalk. He got probation.

Breaking and entering, then hiding in the home you intended to rob: probation! By the way, this guy has 12 former felony convictions…but…probation! How did he even get out of prison in order to fail at this robbery?

Anyway, that leads me to my next case. I was very happy to see that these two probably won’t get probation.

However, the story becomes more disturbing once you find that one of the accused, Bakil Nuh Dahir, has a former conviction for which he was sentenced to 9 years of prison in 2019:

I’m sorry: wut?!? How does a rapist get out of jail early? Before he raped, he had brought an airsoft pistol to our local community college to threaten people after he was banned. Still, someone allowed him a second and third chance. We now give people unlimited chances to prove their goodwill.

Yes: these cherry-picked instances do represent a longer, persistent pattern. In our city, we wanted to be softer on crime. We wanted to be empathetic of people with challenges. However, the county’s chief law enforcement official, the DA, should push for the fullest punishment for victims. Instead, across the country, many DAs prioritize contextualized, empathetic treatment of criminals more than the sentences victims want. The victims don’t necessarily want the person killed, but they do ask for justice according to the law. But, when DAs get people convicted while still touting empathetic criminal justice reform in sentencing, they increase their reelection or appointment chances. The DA and the defense attorneys win! Criminals get lower sentences; DAs get a conviction. Yet, if we look at the end result, are the cities with this pattern of law enforcement winning? Are the victims of crime winning? Those who have endured rape, assault, robbery, and loss are told to sympathize with their perpetrator by the DA, the voice of the state. If the state is not defending its citizens first, or telling them their concerns about recidivism and growing crime are less important than the needs of the criminal, perhaps people will stop supporting their government. This is the start of vigilante justice, and despite my Batman jokes, vigilante justice is bad for society. I don’t think my city is headed down the tubes: it is less like Gotham, and more like Pawnee, IN in Parks and Recreation.

In the Shei case, the DA said they often agreed to plea deals out of the desire to protect children, “from being further traumatized through a protracted court case and having to eventually testify against their abuser.” When I read this statement, I decided to write this article¹. I tend not to trust lawyers claiming to protect a victim, but not allowing testimony. I am not sure testifying would have “re-victimized” those girls more than the paltry sentence given to their alleged rapist. I guess that the victims would agree, but we can’t know, as the only voice we hear is the DA claiming to protect them while sheltering the criminal more. If the state won’t defend the innocent, then who will? Maybe every city needs a Batman…or Batgirl?

Realistic depiction of me as Batgirl (minus the spare tire)

~Thanks for reading!

1. When I was a child, our worthless attorney told my parents the same thing, and I thought that was wrong. I believe my testimony would have had the case dismissed. I understand the idea of protecting kids from cross examination, etc. However, judges are often quite protective of children and victims. Also, someone who chooses to attack a kid on the stand or make them look bad damages their own case. Furthermore, the victims in the Shei case were teenagers during 2023. I think this was a misstep, and it doesn’t convince me they were looking out for the victims.