Email link

Respond to editor

Read comments (22)

Share link

Persistent offender gets probation for driving on revoked or suspended license

Tuesday, October 27, 2009
By KATHY FAIRCHILD/Staff Writer

Harold W. Berger, 57, of Slater, pleaded guilty in Circuit Court Monday, Oct. 26, to class D felony driving on a revoked or suspended license and class C misdemeanor failure to maintain financial responsibility.

What would normally have been a misdemeanor charge of driving on a revoked license was escalated to a felony because of Berger's status as a "prior and persistent" offender, with three previous convictions for this offense, in 2000, 2001 and 2003. He served at least 10 days in jail for each of those offenses.

An additional charge of driving with improper plates was dropped.

Berger's sentence of four years in Missouri Department of Corrections was suspended in favor of a five-year term of court-supervised probation. He was also sentenced to 10 days in Saline County Justice Facility on the misdemeanor charge, which was suspended for a two-year sentence of probation.

The sentences will run concurrently; Berger is barred from driving until December 2011, when his revoked license will be restored.

Contact Kathy Fairchild at marshallhealth@socket.net

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

What's "difficult to pick out?" The subject of the story is the Oct 26 conviction (current). Which is followed by "three previous convictions for this offense, in 2000, 2001 and 2003."

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, at 7:53 PM

sorry...if it were

-- Posted by sbentley on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 1:42 PM

I believe it were a recent conviction,it may have stated that in the story.Otherwise,you are only speculating.Again,going on assumptions...

-- Posted by sbentley on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 1:33 PM

sbently, it's a bit difficult to pick out but he also has a current suspension. That would be based on a recent conviction of something serious (?). So he IS persistent.

I believe that makes FOUR suspensions based on various underlying offenses. That's not a "good" criminal record. And, ... its persistency sure is an indicator that future offending will occur.

-- Posted by AF Brat on Fri, Nov 6, 2009, at 9:05 AM

I just have to say that it truely amazes me how quick some people are to judge others.From what I see,this man hasn't been convicted of anything in 6 years and the only offence he had this time was driving without a licence and no insurance.Which no,obviously he shouldn't be driving but,thinking he should be thrown in prison for it...really?Obviously alcohol was not involved,even if it were, on the other convictions ,that was several years ago.How could anyone presume to know anything about this mans situation?With the economy the way it is,I'm sure there are quit a few people driving without insurance.

-- Posted by sbentley on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 6:37 PM

Correct, Kathy, as to the particular charge in this instance.

But he has THREE previous convictions for driving on a revoked or suspended license. Why was his license suspended in those earlier cases? DWI? or ?

-- Posted by AF Brat on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 9:29 PM

One thing that must be pointed out. There is no charge in this case that involves the use of alcohol. One of the people posting to the story suggested that as a cause, but I must stress that it's *NOT* at issue in this case.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 4:15 PM

I was not very clear on my last blog.

I am referring to the prosecutor. He is our problem and then the judge.

AF brat while i agreee with you on that, I disagree with you about this guy being locked up. Granted it may be $45 a day but if we did this to all the people who have the same rap sheet as this guy the prisons would be full and I can't imagine what the price tag on that would be.

With that being said, I agree he needs some jail time but prison is not the answer.

The real answer is making alcohol illegal! And I know people are gonna go nuts over that statement but it is my opinion.

-- Posted by granny08 on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 3:56 PM

AF Brat,

Thank You!!!!

It makes him look good because he is prosecuting all of these people. What most people don't realize he is part of the sentencing. And 9 times out of 10 the Judge goes on what prosecution recommends.

The next thing we have to understand is that they can't lock up everyone. The prisons are overcrowded so now the criminal justice system has to pick and choose.

-- Posted by granny08 on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 3:43 PM

So. If I want to party in Marshall or Saline county, then I dont have to worry about jail time because I will get probation no matter how many times I do the same thing over and over? Do the actual citizens of our county feel that it is a decision that should be based on the cost outweighing the action or limited room in the county clink? Most counties have this problem and they ship them to other counties.

The city can persecute a person because they are feeding "too many" animals in their yard but not someone who is an actual danger to the people? Interesting concept

-- Posted by mrxray on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 8:40 PM

AF Brat,

Very nicely put.

-- Posted by BDawk4Prez on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 1:15 PM

To answer the questions, you have to comment on the performance of those we trust to protect us. There is no "self defense" against a 3000 pound car traveling at 90 mph that swerves into your lane. In 3 seconds, it's all over. So we have to depend on society (prosecutors and judges) to remove the hazard from our highways for us. Or never leave our own driveways.

In essence, society has just given Mr. Berger another "free pass." The consequences of that will be his presence behind the wheel every day (does anyone actually think he'll not drive?) until he kills or severely injures someone else, OR SOME OTHER JUDGE REMOVES HIM FROM THE STREETS.

By this point in Berger's life it is obvious that neither a short jail stay or more probation will have the slightest influence on his conduct. You might as well not arrest, charge, prosecute, or convict him at all (saving even more time and money, especially that $45 a day), give him a gold plated drivers license, and tell him to "have at 'em."

I'm speculating here, but I'll guess that all of his suspensions have involved DWI offenses. He has been caught many times, so I'll again speculate that he's driven while severely impaired well over 500 times.

This isn't a once in a while social drinker at 0.085. This is a hard core drunk who is a DEADLY THREAT to everyone whenever he gets behind the wheel.

The county prosecutor's job is to get him off the streets. The judge's job is to get him off the streets. The DOC's job is to keep him off the streets. Only the DOC can determine who is the bigger threat -- a 65 year-old spouse murderer (very unlikely to reactivate) who has already served 10 years or this guy. I'd bet on this guy.

The societal cost isn't merely the costs of trial and the $45 dollars a day, it's the loss of dead mother whose children are raised by a single surviving parent, it's the three kids in the back seat who never see 6 years of age, it's the father whose spine is severed who is in and out of hospitals and on Medicaid because he can never work again.

Different pockets, harder to measure, but REAL costs caused by the failure to get this persistent offender OFF THE STREETS, NOW. Costs much of which the state will pay (anyway) because Berger can't be bothered to buy insurance (and the insurance companies are too smart to sell him an coverage). $45 a day is a pittance in comparison.

Which do you prefer -- a million dollars or more in state-funded Medicaid to the victim(s) or $45 a day to the prison system? I know which I'd choose.

-- Posted by AF Brat on Sat, Oct 31, 2009, at 10:32 PM

Without commenting on the judge or the prosecutor, or whether this is an appropriate sentence, let me pose a couple of this questions:

1) Would you rather give him probation, or pay the cost of a jury trial *and* the cost of $45.02 per day to lock him up in DOC?

2) Which currently incarcerated offender would you like to release into the population prematurely so there is room for this offender?

It really comes down to that - pick your poison.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sat, Oct 31, 2009, at 2:57 PM

AF Brat,

Amen

-- Posted by Gumby on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 10:24 PM

This was apparently a plea bargain between the county prosecutor and the defense lawyer. If so, while the Judge is still a problem the bigger problem is the county prosecutor who, in order to avoid the time and effort of a trial, took the easy way out and made the defendant an "offer he couldn't refuse."

While Judges can refuse to accept plea bargains, they usually go along with the prosecutor (who often has access to pertinent "off the record" information). So there is the problem -- the county prosecutor. Go after him in the next election (and hit the judge too while you are at it!).

-- Posted by AF Brat on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 1:19 PM

That was another person that called the judge an idiot, not me, but mine also was deleted. I had just made reference to remembering all of the light sentences when the next election for circuit judge comes up. Wires crossed somewhere I guess???..lol

-- Posted by Gumby on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 12:14 PM

Response by Eric Crump/Editor:

Ah yes. My apologies for the mixup.

But there was no name calling, all I did was mention the judges name????

-- Posted by Gumby on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 10:15 AM

Response by Eric Crump/Editor:

The message I deleted this morning included a clear insult. Perhaps you're referring to a different comment.

Well I don't understand what I said to urp the editor this time?? All I said was remember the light sentences when the next election comes up. What in that opinion is against policy??? Someone is taking opinions personal...

-- Posted by Gumby on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 12:57 AM

Response by Eric Crump/Editor:

Name-calling. It's a common reason for deleting comments.

Seems to me this sentance is way to harsh for the crime.

-- Posted by notgvnasht on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 5:00 PM

Come to Marshall! You can brake the law and 99% of the time get probation!!!

-- Posted by get a clue on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 3:05 PM

If your dog craps on the rug and you give him a cookie (i.e., probation), he'll crap on the rug again. Do it enough times and the dog will never stop.

Didn't this judge ever raise a puppy?

-- Posted by AF Brat on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 12:16 PM

And does anyone think this will keep him from driving? Why no actual jail time after 3 prior convictions?

-- Posted by cmasretire on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, at 11:54 AM