Homeless?
Could it be as simple as that he is homeless and the jail/prison is a roof over his head and he gets fed? Probably a better service/deal than a homeless hostel??
Utah cops are attempting to identify a man who's unnecessarily spent over three weeks in jail on three minor misdemeanor charges because he refuses to reveal his name. The Utah John Doe's mugshot. Pic: Utah County Sherrifs Office The 60-something, "fairly well spoken and educated" John Doe was cuffed on 1 July for " …
He will be held until his trial, then he will be released with any punishment deemed served by the time spent in custody. It's really not an outrageous thing for the courts/police to do.
If he hasn't the money for the fine and/or doesn't fancy community service, it looks like a reasonable course of action for him, too.
Especially as the original offence was probably just sleeping rough.
Since his 'crime' (trespassing in a parking garage) appears to be, as you say, just sleeping rough, surely if found guilty this would not result in a custodial sentence (unless he's fined and is unable to pay). Surely if he is suspected of a major crime his prints would have IDed him. So keeping him locked up indefinitely until he tells them his name is plain silly, not to mention wasting taxpayers money.
I fail to see why they can't arraign him and charge him (and if necessary sentence him) as John Doe and then turn him loose.
And by the way, my guess is domestic / family trouble
Quite possibly its just a way of protesting against what seems like a rather overzelaous arrest policy (tresspassing in a parking gararge ... sounds like something Constable Savage would have come up with) on the basis that "well spoken" and "60-something" may well mean he's got a pension and no work commitments so he may be refusing to co-operate on the basis that "its costing you more than its costing me to keep me here"
This post has been deleted by its author
...that says the guy could easily get out of jail >now< if he revealed his name? And that he is not doing that, thereby prolonging his stay?
"The reason he want to get out of jail is BECAUSE HE IS IN JAIL makes no sense to him?"
No, the fact he is staying in jail longer than he needs to is what makes no sense to the policeman.
The bit that makes no sense to the copper is that the guy is saying that at some time in the future he'll want to be out of jail, but right now he's quite happy to be staying there. The cop thinks its suprising that he doesn't want to get out of jail now, and yet in the futre he wil want to.
since most of this world's Devourers of Children tend to hang out 'n' hobnob within the Washington DC Beltway, many miles east of Utah, though operating these days on a grand global scale.
This account strongly reminds one of Kurt Vonnegut's 'Foxy Grandpa' character at the Blue-Roofed Ethical Euthanasia Parlor. That one eats his Last Meal there, then gives the Ethical Suicide Hostess and Needle the skip-um-out. The orange-roofed Howard Johnson's restaurant is right next door, of course - but one must <i>pay</i> for a HoJo meal... Our friend's of the age and in a position to likely remember that character, being apparently of greater than average literacy and culture... A disaffected 'n' dispossessed former-Middle-Class professional, just maybe a laid-off 'n' disenfranchised IT Manager or similar evaporated standing...?
Just extrapolatin'. But it's Very Vonnegut imvho. And that is all! 0{:-)o<
...Robert Burnham Jr the astronomer, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burnham,_Jr.
Hope he sorts it, and, yes I know a 67 year old who can be this difficult. He is owed a pension by another government who wrote to him to suggest he claimed the income. He is refusing to claim it because they are asking him for his date of birth. His reasoning is that they must have known his date of birth to think of writing him the letter in the first place.
If he's being held in a cell in the pigsty rather than in a prison, it might not be too bad. A friend was on remand during a screw's strike in the late 80's & he got held in a number of provincial stations. Of course in those days they'd feed the prisoners from the same trough the pigs ate from - the rather nice canteen.(I once had a very nice Sunday roast in Bexhill cells) He had access to a television, books & newspapers, & he could even smoke a sly spliff now & then. They'd even leave the cell door open during the day.( Now they hand out appalling microwave crap.)
Icon:Picture of jailbird
What scares me is that the good ol' US of A is quite happy to accept multiple law suits against John and Jane Does for copyright infringement, and hammer people to the wall. Yet this JD, who has not done anything so heiniously evil as sharing music, is still locked up in the clink!
hmmm...
Maybe he has some issue that stop him from trusting authorities?
In the UK this wouldn't be an issue. He'd be held down and DNA taken by force.
He'd then be arrested for failure to identify himself, regardless of why he was picked up in the first place.
This is no fantasy - this has happened.
historically – section 25 PACE – you could be arrested for a non-arrestable offence where it was impossible to properly ascertain your identity; aside from that, _in principle_ no-one should have been arrested simply for refusing to identify themselves;
it should be said that people were regularly unlawfully arrested for non-arrestable offences as a result of the police making mistakes of law – non-arrestable offences were generally the less serious ones; the provision allowing arrest when identity is unverifiable is however legal;
Now an arrest is allowed when 'necessary', including when identity can't be verified; there are no longer non-arrestable offences, thanks tony http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110
In which case why are they putting his picture out there?
Oh, and what will happen is it will go to trial, he will get a fine deemed paid by the time spent in custody, and be free to go. Doesn't seem outrageous.
If he really doesn't want to give his name, why not just wait it out? Seems like a plan to me.
Sorry, can't remember the author, but I'll certainly go see if I can find the book. The plot is quite simple - the hero is a successful businessman that realises his gold-digging wife is having an affair. He follows her and overhears her and her lover discussing how she is going to take him to the cleaners. Enraged at what he sees as the bias in the law that allows his cheating wife to "steal" his fortune, he decides on a scheme to dispose of all his riches, sells his business for a dollar to his partner, gives his mansion to charity, and then avoids the wife's lawyer by getting himself thrown into prison on a minor misemeanor charge. From there, he refuses to give his name and then deliberately provokes the judge in court, keeping himself in jail until the desperate wife gives up and grants him a divorce without alimony payments. Having served the minimal time for his crime, the man leaves jail and goes to work for his old company, whilst the ex-wife is left penniless.
so
1 - the article says the policeman refers to John Doe's 'family background' = evidence of some intrusive questioning, possibly the kind that would lead to a person buttoning it up
2 - Utah, as we know, contains many Mormons, whose deeper attitude to polygamy is non-mainstream
3 - the policeman's suspicions of John Doe being some kind of vague unspecified mega-wanted person as a way of overstating his chagrin at the non-cooperation, are a clear sign of overzealousness;
so I have to infer that the thumbs down are from Mormons? Whoever you are, you seem unwilling to clearly state your contention
NB as it happens I'm in favor of legal polygamy, in a non-cult setting, particularly given current trends in the definition of marriage
To me it's quite obvious that police is going to keep this guy in jail without a charge forever.
He's "not cooperative" or something totally ludicrous and that justifies easily 20-50 years in prison, in any modern court in so called "western countries", i.e. police states. Any of them.
Resisting police is the biggest crime you can do and the penalty is either death or lifetime in prison and the method of the resistance is irrelevant: Keeping silent is as good as shooting back, police don't care: Resistance, any resistance, is not tolerated at all: Total nazism is the name of the game.
I originally read it as "Utah cops baffled in case of mysterious anonymous coffee". I can see the news interview now...
"We found this man dumping beans in our police station. We don't know what brand it is, but Forensics reveals that it's 100% Arabica. Upon further investigation (consisting of grinding them up, and purchase of an Expresso machine from petty cash), we found that the resulting brew was better than Starbucks."
Leave the guy alone. Until a couple of years ago it was no crime at all in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave to refuse to give one's name to the police. Now, in the Land of the Fearful a guy gets put in jail for it? For how long??? Why don't these Official Busybodies go back to the donut shop and leave us the heck alone.
How, exactly, can you justify setting bail for someone who refuses to identify himself? The absolute highest you could set bail would be the the cash he had on him... and no way to issue a bench warrant if he skipped.
No, this guy is either proving a point, pulling a prank, or an investigative reporter.
"How, exactly, can you justify setting bail for someone who refuses to identify himself?...." Ooh, I don't know, how about failure to co-operate with an investigation? Contempt of court (if he didn't supply a name when requested in the bail hearing)? IANAL but you are obviously also NAL and not given to much thought before posting.