Sunday Morning Hot Tea - No. 5
In this edition
Topic of the Week – New Year’s Loose Guidelines
Legal Question – Consecutive versus Concurrent Sentencing
TOPIC THIS WEEK: New Year’s Loose Guidelines
Well, the calendar changed over to a new year, and yet things remain somewhat the same for us all. Back in 2020, I finally broke my annual January 1st tradition of years past where I would set incredibly unrealistic goals for myself. Some examples: Lose 100 pounds, run 2000 miles, invent a new slang word that finds its way into the worldwide vernacular, fit into the dress I wore to my kindergarten graduation, etc. etc. They would mostly have to do with weight, largely because society has ingrained in me that NOW IS THE TIME! YOUR BODY IS BAD! JANUARY CAN MAKE IT GOOD! Each January, gyms would be overrun by eager worker-outers, myself included, no doubt inspired by the clean slate a new year can bring. We think to ourselves, “Yeah, last year I was lazy and didn’t do shit, but THIS YEAR IS MY YEAR!”
Now is also the time of year we see those clickbait headlines promising us “ways to make your resolution stick.” Major publications will interview experts and psychologists who tell you what you should and shouldn’t do in order to succeed with your resolution. Unfortunately, those lists tend to overlap. You absolutely should tell someone your resolution, one expert may say. Post it on social media. Rent out a billboard. Include it in a chain email forward that swears a curse upon the recipients if they don’t forward it to at least 10 friends.
Still another expert may say, like a birthday wish, if you tell another single soul your resolution it will never materialize. Keep it secret. Write it on a paper and burn it. Build yourself a basement laboratory, toil away in private, and only on December 31 should you come clean with what you’ve done.
Last year, rather than making another set of wildly unrealistic and unattainable resolutions for myself, I made what I called my New Year’s Loose Guidelines. I was trying to give myself a break from the harmful, pie-in-the-sky standards I had set for myself over the past few decades.
Was this the best way to do it? I don’t know. If you Google “how to set a goal,” the first result is not “make loose guidelines and freely pat yourself on the back for making an effort.” In fact, the first Google result is a link to the super popular goal-setting system called the SMART system. SMART stands for specific, measureable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. Let’s see how my Loose Guidelines from 2020 fit that:
Eat more vegetables.
SPECIFIC. This was specific in that I was eating no vegetables (does pico de gallo on nachos count? If so, I was eating a few vegetables) and I wanted to eat more.
MEASURABLE. I could measure this goal by eating any vegetables at all - done and done! Paris and I moved in together in 2020, and he started cooking for us, meaning we had things like Brussels sprouts, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, and salads in the house, things that likely would not have been there but for him. He actually said the words, “If I left you to your own devices, you’d eat cereal or mac and cheese for every meal.” Feels great to be loved by someone who knows the real me.
ATTAINABLE. Oh yeah, baby. I attained the heck out of this one. On many occasions, I ordered some vegetable-centric Chipotle burrito bowls on UberEats.
RELEVANT. I mean, I think we can all agree vegetables are good, so it’s relevant to my health, I guess?
TIME BOUND. I completed this by eating several vegetables by the end of the year. GOAL ACHIEVED.
Run more.
SPECIFIC. This was specific in that I meant “more” as in more miles than 2019. That sounds well and good until you realize...
MEASURABLE. I have no way to know how much I ran in 2019 because Apple Health historical data is trash. How far was more? Who knows! In May 2020, I got a Garmin watch and ran 143 miles using it. That doesn’t sound like a lot to me, but I also walked several miles a week, too, just not with the watch. Still, I will count it as a win. For the upcoming year, I am going to be sure to wear the watch every time I go out so I can have something measurable for 2021. Gotta hit that “M” in the SMART goal!
ATTAINABLE. Despite not knowing what number I was shooting for, I think “more” was doable and likely done.
RELEVANT. Wanted to be better/faster at running. Signed up to run the Dallas Marathon to raise money for the Innocence Project in May (click to donate please!) Don't want to do a real life QWOP during the race, or end up in a YouTube fail compilation video (yes they still make those!), or worse. Worse = crap my pants or die.
TIME BOUND. Yep, did it (I think probably??) by the end of the year.
Grow the podcast.
Christie and I put in a lot of work on the show, and 2020 really let us see the fruits of our labor. We got written up in a few magazines, got named Best Podcast by Dallas Observer, and went from 5 million downloads in January to nearly 13 million in December. Pretty incredible to see how it grew. I think this one ticks all the SMART boxes and makes me incredibly grateful to everybody who listened, shared it, recommended it to a friend, bought merch, or subscribed to our Patreon. Thank you! You made this Loose Guideline come true.
Write more.
I got 35,000 words into a manuscript, continued with morning pages (though they’re handwritten so no telling the word counts), and started writing this newsletter. I guess that counts that as “more.”
See what happens when you set Loose Guidelines? You can count them as achievements!
So what goals are we setting for 2021? Might as well double down on the list above and. keep doing those things I have already been doing. Turns out it was a good idea to set those kind of nebulous guidelines for myself. It kept me going even when things were tough. If I had said, “I will run 2000 miles in 2020,” and the pandemic depression sat in or my calf tore and I couldn’t run for a few months, I would have gotten really disappointed to be so behind on my goal. But instead, I could be gentle and kind to myself, saying “more” - even if it wasn’t a lot more - was enough.
In lieu of the uncompromising standards of the SMART system, I have decided to coin my own system: the DUMB system. Please feel free to use this when creating your New Year’s Loose Guidelines. The DUMB system stands for:
Doesn’t make me feel bad about myself;
Usually going to do it, but it’s cool if some days I don’t;
Maybe I will finish it by the end of the year;
But at least I’m trying!
Here’s my advice to you on setting your guidelines - do it however you want - DUMB, SMART, public, secret. Some people do better to post it online, while others thrive by toiling away in their secret underground bunkers. Whether super specific works better or more general does the trick, I recommend everyone’s loose guidelines going forward at least include believing in ourselves and being kind to ourselves. The rest will work itself out.
QUESTIONS FROM YOU
These two great questions are related to one another and tie into the first week’s letter, so let’s tackle them both at once.
Nikki L. asks:
“Hi Heather! What’s the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences? Thank you! PS- I also agree that BSB is the greatest band of all time.”
That is correct, Nikki, BSB is the greatest of all time. Thank you.
In the first week’s newsletter, we talked about back-to-back life sentencing. That’s another way of saying “consecutive life sentences.” When a defendant is sentenced to multiple crimes, the sentencing can be either concurrent or consecutive.
Let's say for instance you get sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for smuggling a bearded vulture into the U.S. on your trip back from Switzerland. Suppose your bird supplier also sold you 99 grams old fashioned heroin to take along with you back to the States, and the judge gives you 10 years for that, too. If all goes well and there are no mitigating circumstances (discussed below) then the sentences will be served concurrently, and you would be released in 10 years. If not, and you are required to serve them consecutively, you wouldn't see the light of day for 20 years. Consecutive sentences are sometimes called “stacked” because the years stack on each other.
On a related note, Rachel D. asks:
“Why are some prison sentences concurrent and some consecutive? What’s the point of concurrent sentences, especially for something really terrible like first degree murder? I guess if it’s like 100 years concurrent then it’s more about sending a message, but what if it’s only like 20 years?”
The short answer is: concurrent is the default.
The federal law that governs multiple sentences of imprisonment says, “Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively.” So really, it is up to either the court (aka the judge) or the underlying law that was broken to determine how the sentences are served.
In considering whether to order a consecutive sentence, the court looks at factors laid out in another federal law. Some of those factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to provide just punishment for the offense; and (3) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, among others.
This is where it can get sticky, as a judge can consider “history and characteristics” of a defendant’s past actions, including crimes that a defendant has been accused of but not convicted of. In the Thanksgiving Day Murders episode of Sinisterhood, we discussed how someone who was acquitted of murder at the state level could have that same murder used against him in federal sentencing for a different but related crime. It’s a practice called “acquitted conduct sentencing” and something that we should demand that our lawmakers ban.
So, by default, sentences for federal crimes are concurrent unless the violated law mandates that they are to be served consecutively or the judge decides to make the sentences consecutive. There are also federal “add-on” statutes that can enhance the sentence for a crime if a prosecutor chooses to charge a defendant with them.
When those additional charges are added, they include language that requires the sentences to be served consecutively and even multiplies the number of years to be served. For further reading on how some federal add-on statutes that require consecutive sentencing lead to low-level offenders being sentenced to longer jail terms than airplane hijackers, check out this article from the ACLU.
In Texas, the law is similar. If a defendant is convicted and sentenced for multiple crimes, the sentences automatically run at the same time (concurrently), unless the judge or jury decides otherwise. In Texas, a defendant can choose to have a jury determine punishment rather than a judge.
As a general rule, in both federal and Texas cases, the sentences will run concurrently - at the same time - by default unless a statute, judge, or jury for a Texas case, says otherwise.
Regarding the second part of your question, sometimes back-to-back sentences are used to send a message, and other times they are meant to “protect the public” as the federal guidelines suggest. By stacking the sentences, the government can keep defendants incarcerated for as long as possible, even if it is for low-level crimes.
Here is a link to the ACLU’s page on Sentencing Reform if you want to dive deeper into some of the problematic laws on the books as well as their inequitable application in both state and federal courtrooms. We’ve got a long way to go on criminal justice reform, especially in the area of sentencing. Knowing what the law is today so we know how to demand change is a good first step.
Thanks for asking those great question, Nikki and Rachel!
Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don’t send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.
Until next week, that’s the tea and it’s between you and me. Meh idk how I feel about this one. Maybe I’ll go back to the teabaggin’ one?
--
Thanks for subscribing! If you hate it, there’s a way to unsubscribe. I don't know how, but go for it. I won’t blame you. Don’t forget to listen to Sinisterhood, check out our shop, and support us on Patreon. Learn more about me here.