Carr and Healey field forum questions


Town Justice candidates Tom Carr (Republican, Independence) and Mary-Faith Healey (Democrat) fielded questions from their hosts and an audience of about 50 during the joint League of Women Voters and Shelter Island Association (SIA) election forum on Sunday afternoon at the Shelter Island School.

League President Cathy Kenny explained the limitations on judicial campaigning at the outset of the forum — candidates cannot make campaign promises or comment on decisions they’d make in specific cases — but even with the restrictions, questions were to the point, with few softballs.

A discussion of the upcoming town referendum on increasing the terms of the supervisor and highway superintendent from two to four years followed the candidates’ Q and A. The vast majority of those commenting were in favor of two-year terms; that discussion will be covered in next week’s Reporter.

Several of the forum questions and excerpts from the candidates’ answers follow, quoted verbatim:

What alternatives to incarceration would you use?

Ms. Healey: Alternatives that should be and usually are considered are things like community service, drug and alcohol programs when we’re talking about substance abuse, and also attendance at courses that may address underlying problems such as substance abuse problems.

If one has had repeat offenses, and if incarceration is in fact called for, I would recommend it.

However, in the jurisdiction of our court, which is not really felonies and only addresses misdemeanors, it is very rare that incarceration would ever be considered.

Mr. Carr: It is very rare that there is anyone being incarcerated. Most cases end up with community service if it’s like a violation of the law, it’s not a crime … For example, misdemeanors for a first-time offender, it’s three years probation and followed by the Suffolk County probation department.

In the rare case that you have a repeat offender … sometimes [the] probation [officer] would recommend incarceration but generally it’s up to the judge to agree with that … But again, it’s very few people that are incarcerated from the Shelter Island Court.

Do you believe there are sufficient alternative programs available in this community?

Mr. Carr: With drug issues, at least with first-time offenders and violations and misdemeanors, there is a Drug Court [in Southampton or Riverhead]. For DWIs now, there is basically mandatory counseling, outpatient treatment and, in some cases, inpatient treatment for these offenders.

Basically the local court here on the Island pretty much follows the state rule on these various programs.

Ms. Healey: There are many programs available for those with drug or alcohol abuses. And I think also what we need to do in our community is to work for prevention before people come to the court. For example, Communities That Care is a very important program.

So I think the town is addressing these in other ways … Hopefully we will be able to address problems when they are much smaller, rather than when they increase to felony level. At that point they are out of the Shelter Island court.

What is your philosophy on reducing charges for offenders, such as those for driving while intoxicated?

Ms. Healey: First of all it is up to the district attorney to offer a plea bargain. It is not at the discretion of the judge to offer it; it is the judge’s discretion to accept or reject it. And in cases of driving while intoxicated, if someone is above a certain level on the chart, the district attorney will not recommend a plea bargain. So not every case goes to plea bargaining. In many circumstances it is required to remain as it is.

In other circumstances, it is within the judge’s discretion, and the judge will look at all the circumstances involved to determine whether or not it would be appropriate.

Even if a plea bargain is accepted, remember that the person is still pleading guilty to an offense and is still serving a sentence, often a very similar version of a sentence they might be serving if they had pleaded to the higher charge.

Mr. Carr: I think people have to understand that this court only meets twice a month and the judges are on every other month. It’s a part-time court. Now, the individual charged with a crime, whether a vehicle traffic violation or misdemeanor, certainly has an option to go to trial or take a plea. That’s normally the case … Say this person is a first-time offender, he has a good driving record, he’s never been in trouble before. In those cases, to move the matters through the court, the district attorney may speak to the judge and the defense attorney and decide to reduce the charge to an impaired misdemeanor … .

But if he’s a first-time offender and has an exemplary driving record, the district attorney and judge [may] feel it’s easier to give that person leniency the first time around. The second time around, there may not be a break. He may need to plead guilty or go to trial.

Under what circumstances would you recuse yourself from hearing a case?

Mr. Carr: Obviously if it was a family member involved, or an associate or close friend, I’d recuse myself. If it was a client I had represented previously in the past two years, I’d recuse myself.

Or if I felt, for example, that I had a particular bias towards this individual for whatever reason, I would recuse myself.

Ms. Healey: If it was a family member or a close friend, I would definitely recuse myself. If it was one of my normal clients or someone I had represented in the recent past … I would also recuse myself. And if I really believed that I had an issue with this person because I came in contact with them for some reason that would prevent me from being fair and impartial, I would need to recuse myself.

I don’t anticipate that problem but I’m always very aware of the ethics involved, and want to be certain that any decisions I make would not be questioned on the basis that I was leaning towards someone or against them.

Will you continue private practice while on the bench? Will you put the justice position first?

Ms. Healey: Absolutely. I do have a private law practice and I do intend to continue in that practice.

But I recognize the time commitment that is involved with running for town justice and with becoming a town justice. I certainly had to take that into consideration in making the decision to run.

I also, as I said, have worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory for 34 years … I was having a law practice on the side as well as working at the laboratory in a senior management position.

And I always was conscious of the fact that I needed to devote equal time or ample time to each of those … I’m quite familiar with the balance there and I have experience with it and I certainly will keep it.

Mr. Carr: I agree with Mary-Faith. I’m in the same boat as well. The salary obviously doesn’t pay a lot of money. We can still manage a law practice on the side. Of course we can’t represent people in landlord/tenant matters or people on criminal matters in any East End justice courts — we have to stay out of that.

OTHER FORUM TOPICS

The candidates also fielded questions about legalization of marijuana, the basic jurisdiction of the town court, what resources they would use if they did not know the answer to a legal question and their compensation and the amount of time they expect to be in court. During the candidates’ three-minute opening statements, they reviewed their qualifications and backgrounds, information that will be covered by the Reporter in a candidate questionnaire to be published next week.

On behalf of the league and the SIA, Ms. Kenny encouraged everyone to keep Town Justice Helen Rosenblum in their thoughts as she recovers from a sudden illness (more on page 2).

The forum will be broadcast on Channel 22. Check the town website, shelterislandtown.us, for broadcast times.