A recent sentencing decision by Orchard Park Town Judge Michael J. Pastrick has raised concerns about judicial discretion. The case involves Frederick C. Hartman, a shoplifter who pleaded guilty to petit larceny for stealing two drill kits from a local store.
Supporting his decision largely on that there was no evidence suggesting Hartman resorted to theft due to a lack of basic necessities, Judge Pastrick sentenced him to the maximum one year in jail and imposed a hefty fine. According to Orchard Park Town Justice Michael J. Pastrick, Hartman's theft case exhibited the hallmarks of "organized, for-profit retail theft."
In his sentencing ruling, Pastrick stated that he wanted to make an example out of Hartman and issue a warning to others. The judge sentenced Hartman to one year in jail and imposed a fine of $1,298, double the value of one of the stolen drill kits. During the trial, a senior asset protection manager for the store testified that he witnessed Hartman selecting a $549 DeWalt combo kit, cutting the security cable, and leaving the store on March 17, 2023. Two days later, Hartman repeated the same act, stealing a $649 DeWalt combo kit.
Pastrick justified his decision by referring to a previous case in which he required trespassers to perform community service. Critics argue that the judge's sentencing decision was disproportionate and failed to consider the individual circumstances of the case. They highlight that spending a year in county jail is not proportionate to the crime and that, instead of incarceration, a term of probation would have been more appropriate.
Recidivism rates for individuals incarcerated v. those on probation show that it is not a deterrant to future criminal conduct. Being sentenced to probation allows for community supervision for a period of several years. In this case, it could have been 3 years. Instead, the defendant here will serve 2/3 of the one year - amounting to 8 months - and then be released with no supervision.
For Judge Hartman, his decision was surely influenced by Hartman's prior criminal history which includes six felony convictions including robbery and attempted robbery, as well as multiple misdemeanor and minor violation convictions. In his ruling, Pastrick acknowledged Hartman's criminal background but concluded that the petit larceny charge had the indicia of organized, for-profit theft.
The judge expressed his hope that the maximum sentence would hold "recidivist, profit-seeking thieves" accountable and deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. The controversy surrounding this sentencing decision has ignited a broader debate about the appropriate use of judicial discretion in sentencing.
Critics argue that the punishment imposed on Hartman, a misdemeanor offender, was excessively harsh and may hinder his chances of rehabilitation. They emphasize the importance of considering alternative sentencing options that focus on rehabilitation rather than solely punitive measures.
Balancing the goals of deterrence, accountability, and rehabilitation remains a complex challenge that requires careful consideration of individual circumstances and the potential for positive change.
No information is available if the defendant is appealing the decision. Has the judge abused his discretion in sentencing the defendant for shoplifting?