MEET THE SHERIFF & ACCOUNTABILITY SOLUTIONS

Meet Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson. Accounability solutions and locked facility neccessities in the name of public safety.

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
I don't understand why that many peoplewere shot and only her. She was
the most innocent thing in there.You have to remember Carly Rain and we
I don't know how, I don'tknow what that's gonna look like, but
we have to. We have tostand up for Carly Rain period. We

(00:30):
have to remember her because that wasa waste, That was a wasted life.
Carly Rain Matters topics that arise ina journey through murder, three loss
and fight for change. This isFroble. I am far from mover.

(01:04):
Hello and welcome to Carly Matters,a podcast about the journey, the grief,
the loss, and the fight forchange through my daughter being murdered and
shot eight times by violent offenders,repeat felons with guns. And today we

(01:25):
have a special guest bringing in DouglasCounty Sheriff Aaron Hanson. And Sheriff Hanson
has been very supportive of Carly andthis entire journey and helping me with my
victim voice, and I wanted tobring him on to get a background about

(01:51):
him, but then also to followthrough some of the laws and the regulations
and the things that need change.So we're gonna bring him in in just
a minute trying to start this podcastand remember Carly Rain. Stand up for
Carly Rain and Carlrain dot com.Today I have someone who's been an awesome

(02:17):
supporter and an informer of certain lawsand things, Sheriff Aaron Hanson. Thanks
for being here, no problem.Happy to stand up for survivors and innocent
people every day. And I appreciateyou taking the time to talk, and
I'm sure we'll have several chats aboutthings. I kind of wanted to go

(02:43):
way back and start a little bitabout your background in law enforcement and kind
of get to know you a littlebit, like because of all of the
things that I've gone through, thethings that other moms have gone through,
and you deal with all of us, what's your background in law enforcement?
Sure? Well, real quick.Omaha kid born and raised, started my

(03:10):
start my younger life as a southOma kid. Lived down at forty fourth
and f and then my dad movedus out to Omaha for a few years,
down to Houston, and we movedback. He moved us up into
North Omaha Florence Bonker Hills area,So South Omaha kid became a north Omak
kid. I graduated North High startedattending University of Nebraska, Omaha, and

(03:32):
I was actually going to be ageologist or hydrologist. My dad was a
chemist, and so, you know, I thought, wow, I liked
I liked the sciences. But throughcollege I found a job at the old
shop Go up on North thirtieth Street, where I fell a home Florence area,
catching shoplifters. They actually paid me, oh wow, to walk around

(03:55):
and playing clothes and catch shoplifters.And that got me the approximate to lots
of different police officers, both theOmah police officers that worked off duty at
the Shopgill because it was considered probablyone of the more high risk retail stores,
but then also the officers that wouldrespond. And I got bit by

(04:15):
the bug. I mean, Iloved I realized suddenly that wow, you
know, I never ever thought thata career law enforcement be for me.
But I really loved the problem solving. I loved interacting with people, and
so at age twenty two, wellat twenty one, actually applied for the

(04:35):
police department. Didn't make it onmy first shot, did get hired on
my second shot in September nineteen ninetysix, did not finish college. I'm
actually back in college right now,trying to finish my degree in criminal justice,
which fascinating to do that at thispoint is as a long time law

(04:56):
enforcement professional now law enforcement executive.Spent the bulk of my career in patrol
in the police department. So whatI'm hearing right now is you're kind of
a poster boy for people who youknow, you don't make it the first
time, keep trying, kind oflike a Jordan, you know, you
know I got cut from the team, didn't. I wouldn't Sam a Jordan.

(05:19):
I would wouldn't even Sam a Pippin, but just a hard working,
hard working kid from Omaha that youknow, ended up falling into a career
that I love. And the majorityof my career was on the patrol,
either as a uniform patrol officer ina as a district officer. I spent

(05:39):
fourteen years on the canine unit,and that really gave me a lot of
experience with, you know, avariety of different areas of law enforcement,
both criminal investigations, either a criminalinterdiction on the interstate, intercepting drugs,
guns, and large amounts of cashfrom drug cartels and other criminals, but
also the using the canine for officersafety purposes and public safety purposes tracking down

(06:02):
the shooters and the rapists and theburglars and the robbers. Did you ever
keep one of your canines? Idid. I kept. I kept all
of them, with the exception ofsome that we had to wash out.
I kept all of them, andthey all they all either finished their career
with me or or with another officerif they were repurposed. Did you ever

(06:23):
lose one, No, just oldage. I lost lost two of them
just for old age retirement. Oneof them was repurposed from a dual purpose
dog to a single purpose dog,and a corrections officer took him over to
do drug work and corrections. Andone we just had to We had to
wash him out. He just wasn'ta fit for the agency, and so

(06:45):
another agency bought him down South.But you know that those years were very
formative. During those same years,I was also union president of the Police
Association for six years. That kindof helped me get bit by the policy
bug because I wasn't My job wasn'tonly to make sure that we were negotiating

(07:06):
officers contracts and defending them in purposesof due process. But I also realized,
you know, over my union leadershipcareer, we lost an officer to
a high risk repeat defender, andit was an officer that went through the
academy with me, Jason ty Pratt, and that I think was very instrumental

(07:28):
in changing my view on why ourcriminal justice laws matter, because I had
to look his widow and his daughtersin the eye and know that very likely
their husband and father's life was takenbecause the system had failed. And we

(07:48):
saw the same thing with the suspectthat killed Carrie Roscoe, same thing,
repeat defender, inadequate supervision resulting inthe flonious death of a police off and
it shouldn't losing police officers to suspectslike that should be a cause for change,

(08:09):
but it shouldn't be the only causefor change. We need to value
the life of any innocent person thatmeets their demise or is victimized at the
hands of a repeat offender. Usethose as opportunities to change our policies and
laws not only to keep innos andpeople safe, but try to give those
offenders a real opportunity to rehabilitate sothey can take care of their families and

(08:30):
be contributing members of society rights.And that's something that I've said from the
very beginning that you know, evenwith Carly's case, one of the guys
who who is actually charged with shootingCarly was released on bond. After he

(08:50):
was held on a high bond.Another judge, Stephanie Hansen, reduced his
bond by I believe it was twohundred five fifty thousand dollars, which allowed
him to get back on the streets. So for me, I'm going we'll
wait a minute if it tends tobe which several law enforcement people have told
me that it's the same type.It's the same guys. We keep arresting

(09:13):
the same guys, this core ofpeople. They're not only releasing guys who
potentially are going to be pulled upfor murder, but they're repeat violent offenders.
They're felons with guns. And nowwhen those charges come down, an

(09:33):
officer has to go arrest them again, which every time you do that is
also endangering the life of an officer. Correct. Yeah, And you know
crime, crime is math, justlike life is math. I mean,
there's a there's a mathematical rhythm toit which can be interrupted with appropriate intervention
or if someone refuses to accept thatintervention, then I think we need to

(09:58):
have appropriate places to keep them.But I will I want to talk about
let's talk about how we get inthese situations. So, Judge Stephanie Hanson
is an exceptional judge. She wasa prosecutor then in Sarpy County. She
is an exceptional county court judge.But being a judge is tough because you
are tasked with making decisions on bond, especially the county court judges, with

(10:20):
very limited information. These charges comein. It's usually a cattle call.
You're lucky if the judges or theprosecutors can really get a full scope view
of everything that the police officer knowswhen they made the arrest. And quite
frankly, the police officer might nothave a full in depth handling or assessment

(10:48):
of that individual's high risk history.Usually those are going to be the gang
investigators or the ones that are taskedwith really understanding who the high risk individuals
are in our community. Why wouldn'tthey have that? The system just isn't
built for that right now, becausebond is right now, the current design

(11:09):
is it's going to be fast.You may have some college student or some
civilian that works for corrections that's assessingor a computer that's assessing someone's risk level
to present to the judge. AndI think that that's probably one of those
areas where we need to do moreresearch. We need to drill down deeper
and say, hey, let's reallybe more thoughtful in balancing those bond decisions

(11:35):
and giving the judges the best informationthat they need to make an informed choice
on bond, whether it's the amountof bond cash, bond low or high,
whether it is ordering terms of supervisionon a bond. But then it
doesn't stop there, because you know, a judge can order a suspect to

(11:56):
be on ankle monitor, they canorder them to be supervised, they can
order him to have a curfew,But what good is that if there is
no one to actually follow through andhold those individuals accountable and supervise them on
the street. So there are alot of conversations we need to have when
it comes to these issues. Well, in that particular, bond wasn't appeal

(12:16):
because the first judge put him atseven hundred and fifty thousand and he wasn't
going anywhere, And then they didan appeal and she reduced it with no
explanation, which is another thing Ithink judges should explain their decisions. Well,
you got to remember, I meanthe judges. The judges are under
a lot of pressure from the criminaljustice system as well. You know,

(12:39):
there's a lot of pressure from countyofficials. We only have so much correctional
infrastructure space, and you have somepoliticians that would probably be open to discussions
to create more jail infrastructure to beconsistent with the growth of a community,
but you've got other politicians that theyare dead set against any growth in correctional

(13:03):
infrastructure because, as they would sayit, if you build it, they
will come well. In my view, Sheriff, I think the best policy
is to have enough correctional space tomeet the needs of your community based on
the challenges that you face and thepopulation it should grow. Just like our
schools grow with population, they shouldgrow with population. And I think the

(13:28):
real barometer for success is, hey, if we've got a safe community and
empty jail beet space. I reallyam uncomfortable with the political theory that we
must reduce incarceration rates by limiting incarcerationpotential. That gets people killed and that

(13:50):
doesn't help high risk people to rehability. That's backwards, and it honestly goes
against every boy scout law right thatbe prepared. And I believe it's the
county's job, if I'm not ifI'm not wrong, it's the county's job
to have the infrastructure there ready,And there doesn't seem to be a reason

(14:18):
to not have enough beds, especiallywhen we've got people in the system saying,
oh, we're saving money with say, pre trial release by opening beds
for our paying customers. Well,if we already had more beds and we
didn't need to release people onto pretrial release that should never be on pretrial

(14:39):
release, that aren't being monitored properly, then it's a win win because you
can those empty beds can be soldto the Feds, you know. And
I'm a supporter of the concept ofpre trial release as long as it's as
long as it's done appropriately. Takefor example, you know, maybe you've
got a single mom or a singledad, or you know some on a

(15:00):
young married couple and one of themmakes a mistake, and they make a
mistake, maybe they even commit afelony, and the issue is do we
allow this person to have an attainablecash bond to get out, not lose
their job, hopefully to get overwhatever mistake they made. I think there's

(15:26):
a good time and a place forallowing that to happen. But you got
to have the insurance policy too ofmaking sure that you're supervising those folks so
that they don't continue to make mistakesso that scenario one, scenario two is
just a chronic repeat offender, right, a violent felon. I have sat
through those bond setting hearings. I'veseen their defense attorneys come up and you

(15:48):
know, describe these chronic repeat offendersas father of the year, the hardest
working forty hour fifty sixty hour aweek worker you could possibly have, And
I know that's all bs and workingon a ged for the twelve time.
That's why we have to have agood, robust system that really separates weed

(16:10):
from chef so that judges, prosecutors, and society does not get taken advantage
of our by our goodwill efforts towant to balance pre trial incarceration with pre
trial release. Well, and whatare your thoughts on the process of how

(16:34):
they assess these people, because Iknow for Carly's I sat in there for
hearing, and some guy came inlate and then just rattled off four and
it wasn't even the highest score andhe was arrested for second degree murder.
Yeah, I know you told methat one of the offenders, and I'm
familiar with their background. You toldme one of the offenders had a four

(16:56):
out of five severe rating in termsof risk, and I'm taking you at
your word on that. I neversaw it, but that would concern me.
That would tell me that if youhave someone who's being charge with a
homicide, especially with the record thatI know that that individual had. I
think I was involved in almost everyfelony arrest of that individual throughout their juvenile

(17:18):
and adult criminal career, four outof five would be concerning. That tells
me that maybe we're relying too muchon a computer to tell us what's right
and wrong. And that's I thinkwhere we need to use the safe net.
The safety net of Hey, thecomputer can do the front end fleshing
out, but then we need people, especially people that are law enforcement trained,

(17:42):
that understand the balances both inside andoutside of the correctional facility to help
paint that final picture well. Andit needs to be discussed with law enforcement
guys like you who do know thatperson and do know what they're capable of
and have had interactions with them,because a lot of them, if they
were juveniles when they did heinous things, its sealed then at that point,

(18:03):
right yeah, if you know,if a juvenile traverses through the juvenile justice
system and they and their record issuccessfully if they're deemed successfully discharge quote unquote
from juvenile probation and their record issealed, and it's as if it never
happened. And you and I bothwe have a mutual friend, another mother

(18:25):
who just had her very high riskjuvenile justice involved daughter have her she was
successfully discharged by juvenile court. Youand I both know her and her case
well enough to know they just doup their hands. And I am highly
suspect as to why a government systemwould want to seal these records. I
think I have a theory as towhy. But I think there's a lot

(18:48):
of potential for improvement in that systemas well. Well. To me that
that case in particular, I waslike, wait a minute. One In
one aspect, they were told no, the judge ordered her she had to
go somewhere else and be detained andgo to this place. But then someone
else told the mom, Oh,well, so and so in the system

(19:11):
and so and so. I don'tknow if it was probation or who didn't
file what they needed to file.Therefore, now you have to come get
your kid. And if you don'tcome get her, now it's child neglect.
And by the way, she's successfullydischarged. It's like, wait,
but she didn't successfully prove finish.Yeah, So the way, just to
kind of bring everyone up to speedthe scenario that Amber and I are talking

(19:32):
about. It's a mother. She'sin Sarpy County, not Douglas County,
her daughter teen, daughter seventeen.Now I think had been involved in the
juvenile justice system since age fourteen.She had been running away constantly. I
don't think that they probably had herin a non secure facility any one time
where she didn't run away, andwithin two weeks human trafficked, sexually assaulted

(19:56):
constantly. I think most recently,had been arrested in a stolen car,
and iowa constantly being using drugs andalcohol risky behavior. This is never a
case where this juvenile should have beensuccessfully discharged, let alone unsuccessfully discharge.
In my opinion because I think thisis a juvenile that needed further services.

(20:18):
But unfortunately is similar to what wetalked about with the pre trial release system.
You know too much, the systemjust throws up its hands and says,
well, what can we possibly door just does not take that caring,
methodical approach to the situation in frontof them. And that's where I
think again, we need our policymakersto give fresh eyes to all these issues,

(20:44):
and we will never get that doneappropriately without people like you Amberwood bringing
these issues up to the forefront.Throughout my entire career, especially in the
last ten years of my career asa gang investigation supervisor fugitive unit super I
dealt with so many families that lostloved ones and they were traumatized, and

(21:04):
they made a T shirt and theydo a balloon launch and maybe there was
a prayer walk and something on thenews, and then nothing nothing else because
they didn't have the wherewithal, theydidn't have the confidence, they didn't have
the connections, or maybe it wasjust culturally they just felt, hey,
this is just to write a passagefor people in our community and and I'm
just going to let this go.Well, you are a prime example of

(21:27):
a survivor who will not let itgo. And I think that's why you
and the group of moms you broughttogether have been making impact in our in
our our public policy decision making,and why I hope you continue and I
hope you grow your you grow yourcircle of supporters well, and I hope
that it does grow. I ironically, I have connected with about ten other

(21:52):
moms in other states and a dadwho same thing, kill by repeat violent,
a fender or a felon that shouldn'thave been out, and so that's
a whole different, whole different beastI want to tackle at some point.
But it kind of brings me back. So you were at union president.

(22:14):
Was that like your first taste ofkind of the politics side of things,
and what did that feel like asa you know it sounds I mean,
you're literally if you were in themilitary, you came up from the bottom
and you're moving up and now you'reat the top, right, I mean
that's kind of yeah, it wastough. I mean it was you know
at that point when I when Iwas a new when I was the new

(22:38):
incoming president of the OLAW Police OfficerAssociation, I was the only one that
really wanted the job, because thatwas a point in time where police union
leaders were losing their jobs over speakingout publicly on public safety issues. That
were getting fired. When was this, This was two thousand and four.

(23:00):
I've Kevin Housch, retired OMAW PoliceOfficer Association sergeant. He was a union
treasurer and he had expressed concerns overresponse time calculations. He felt that the
calculations were not that that they thatthey needed to be calculated in a different
way to reflect the true response time. And and he was very opinionated in
what he said and had some strongwords for some politicians at the time,

(23:22):
and he was fired. So whywould speaking out for public safety as a
law enforcement officer be a bad thing? Well, you know, and even
though I am a politician now,I hate to admit it, I have
to get elected to continue my jobas sheriff. Even though I'm a law
enforcement officer, law enforcement professional,I'm an elected official as well. And

(23:44):
some politicians just you know, thethe truth and reality is is a little
a little difficult. It's uncomfortable forsome politicians. And I kind of see
that as my role now as sheriff. As the top up sworn peace officer
law enforcement executive for a county government, I think that's my job to speak

(24:08):
very bluntly and honestly because the situationthat we talked about earlier when Sergeant Kevin
Aush was fired, that's the exampleof what can happen when people try to
speak truth to power and certain powerfulpeople in government don't like it. That
was ultimately found to be deemed illegalby the court. He did get his

(24:30):
job back, but you know,and thank god that we did have a
strong police Officers Association at the timeas willing to fight that fight because people
need to hear from their street levellaw enforcement professionals. We cannot throttle these
conversations to any one group or individual, And honestly, it kind of the

(24:52):
same thing goes for grief. Forsome reason, I just felt like people
need to know what this does.People need you know what losing your what
losing Carly being shot eight times didto me, and what it does every
day because unless you've ever experienced itor seen it from like your end,
people can't grasp that and they don'tunderstand and even even as much as we

(25:17):
tell them or we show them.It's still hard, and some people just
don't even want to see it orthey can't handle it. But it's real.
And what I'm finding is that itactually is way too common and a
lot of the murders and a lotof the deaths of these of our kids

(25:41):
could have been prevented, and itis the system well people, and there's
a lot of people who don't wantto have these conversations. So Amber,
I think you and I have talkeda lot about your case and your passion
and your quest to speak publicly inthese issues. But I mean, correct
me if I'm wrong. You've gottenblowback too. I mean, you've had
people in public settings that have toldthat have I mean pretty much correct me

(26:03):
if I'm wrong, but made youfeel that you should just be quiet,
and that this is just what happens, and that you're rocking the boat too
much. I mean, I thinkpeople need to know that talk talk a
little bit about your experience with thatwithout naming particular names or you know,
maybe shame. You know, youdon't want a broad brushstroke any any particular
name. But let's try to keepit. Let's try to keep it as
neutral as we can, so peopleunderstand what it's like to be a survivor

(26:29):
speaking out and how difficult it canbe. Well even outside of the you
know, the social aspect, whenyou when you see all the ignorant comments
and the people that it's easy tosay things behind a computer keypad about someone
you don't even know. That didn'taffect me as much as elected officials kind

(26:51):
of dismissing the fact that Carly waskilled or or ignoring the fact. You
know, I've I've spoken many times, and I I'm not one to keep
quiet about it. And I literallywent to a town hall meeting and had
an issue with the mayor after severalattempts of emails, phone calls, letters

(27:21):
like snail mail letters. And itwasn't just me, there was other family
members, There was other people thatwrote her letters no reply and this isn't
this was a mass shooting. Andto not get on TV or to not
say that victim's name, Carly wasthe only one killed in that mass shooting,

(27:42):
but nine people were shot, andthat's a big deal in my opinion,
that's a big deal in a city. And I see on you know,
national television where four people are shotand their mayors on national TV talking
about it, so it was verydisting to not get a response one and

(28:03):
then when I actually asked the questionat a town hall to be to honestly
be called a liar that it didn'thappen, that they that they never that
I wasn't telling the truth about notbeing responded to, which is false,
but never even getting acknowledging the question. Well, you know, I think
that part of that. And here'sthe deal. You know, I think,

(28:27):
especially if you look back over thelast you know, eight years especially,
we've been very fortunate to have mayorStother she's you know, we could
have we we could have everybody's goingto disagree on things. But when the
times were really tough, especially intwenty twenty, and we saw elected officials

(28:48):
just turning their back on law enforcementand public safety issues left and right,
she didn't do that well. Andyou know what, honestly I voted.
I was a Stothart fan until this. Well, and everyone's entitle of their
opinion, but you know, Ido think that I think that that any

(29:10):
elected leader, I don't care ifit's a county board member, city council
member, mayor state senator, sheriff, county attorney. I think we've all
got to do a better job oftrying to work together collaboratively on these issues,
because whether you're the sheriff or themayor, or a city council person
or county attorney or county commissioner,violence and violence prevention is your concern.

(29:33):
And just because it's not in publicsafety, just because it's not your direct
issue right now, doesn't mean it'snot a collaborative opportunity for us to do
better, you know. And Ithink that sometimes what I've seen is some
areas of government are like, well, that's a county issuer, that's a
city issuer. That's a state issue, and it's not my It's for the

(29:53):
state to worry about, it's forthe county to worry about, it's for
the city to worry about. Ithink we got to look at that a
little different. But you know,again, going back to the mayor,
the mayor has grown the police departmentover her tenure in OPD. She's given
Chief Schmater the ability to grow thegang unit. Unfortunately, right now we're

(30:14):
in a tough spot with OPD wherethey're they're in a stabbing crisis and they're
doing the bet they can to digout from it, and so that it's
hard to maintain that high level doingeverything you'd like to do when you're short
staffed. But I still think we'relucky to have OPD and OPD leadership and

(30:34):
the support that Mayor stouthor gives themto combat violence the best we can.
Well, and here's so, here'smy here's here's my issue. My issue
wasn't so chief has been awesome.I've met with him a couple of times.
He he does answer his phones andthe best police chief in the nation

(30:56):
hands down and he does respond.And she kind of pushed it off,
Well, I don't. I don'ttell my chief what to do and all
this, and it's like, no, see, I'm asking you. You
are the figure ahead of the city. And it isn't about I'm not asking
her to go solve the case.I'm not asking her. I'm asking her
to acknowledge. You know. It'skind of like when celebrities live in their

(31:18):
everything's wonderful land. But the realityis Omaha has had an uptick in juvenile
violence and we had two mass shootingswithin what a year of each other,
And that's to me, that's afigurehead a mayor comes out and says,
hey, I feel really bad forso and so and so and so that

(31:44):
passed away, and please public speakup. That's what I want her to
do. Well, And I'll giveyou an example, speak to the public.
I think I'm frustrated with the factthat, you know, how many
years are we after the Nico Jenkinsmurder. Where were they in two thousand?

(32:04):
Yeah, it's it's I mean,it's been it's been a decade or
more since Nico Jenkins killed many innocentpeople in our community, and everyone was
intensed, and local media sources didnews stories all the time and and and
highlighted what went wrong, and certainlegislators focused on prison reform, but they

(32:29):
didn't address what ultimately caused Nico Jenkinsto get out, unreformed and kill all
these innocent people. And in fact, if Nico Jenkins was in prison now
for the same crime that he wasin prison prior to that, he would
probably jam out with no supervision thesame exact way that he did then.

(32:51):
And that's even with him. Sohe jammed out. He did not time
out. No, he jammed out. He got he didn't get all of
his good time, but he didget a good portion of his good time,
despite the fact that he was constantlythreatening, threatening correction staff, saying
he was, you know, assaultingpeople in jail escape attempt. I think
he actually really either escaped or aheck of a good try to escape at

(33:15):
a I think his grandma's funeral andliterally people, I'm gonna kill people.
Yeah, And despite that, hestill enjoyed automatic good time. He did
lose some. But if you lookat his original sentence, I mean,
he'd have been in for a significantamount of time if they would have taken
all of his good time away.But again goes back to the politics,

(33:37):
the pressure of prisons and corrections becausewe had too many leaders in Nebraska for
too many years. Thank god PeteRicketts took it in a different direction and
identified the need. We were soconcerned about not wanting to spend money on
new correctional infrastructure that they used automaticgood time just as a way to wash

(33:59):
their hands with people, will getthem out, open up the bedspace for
someone else. So but you wouldthink, and I can this this phrase,
there is no logic in law anymoreLike that pops up in my head
all the time. You would thinkthat the corrections officers, the people within
the prison know who's way off theirrocker, who's a higher risk to public

(34:23):
safety, and who isn't like,we got to keep this guy in or
is it just a piece of paperthat somebody else sees and goes, oh,
well, his time's close. Pushhim out. Because if they're not
talking to the law enforcement within theprison and putting that guy up on this
other level, why is that Well, I think I think their hands are
tied on some things because of theway that our sentencing laws are designed.

(34:46):
We've got we've got a wacky sentencingstatute in Nebraska. It's called indeterminate sentencing.
So you get you know, thejudge will give you a minimum,
and they'll give you a maximum.But the minimum does not mean the minimum,
and the maximum does not mean themaximum. The minimum is half of

(35:06):
your half of your minimum sentence reallymeans that's when you're pro eligible absinute mandatory
minimum charge or mantor minimum sentence,and your maximum really means half of that
number is your jam out date,assuming that you get all your good time,
which a vast majority of people do. So again to the public,

(35:27):
when the news says, oh,sentence twenty five years. Guess what it
is. Ten to twenty means fiveto ten um and pro eligible in five
and jam out in ten most likelinessit did something crazy. But then there's
also internal policies like it's my understanding, and I don't know. This may
have changed under the new administration,or at least I think hopefully they're looking

(35:49):
at it. I think that themaximum amount of good time someone could lose
in the past was two years ofgood time. So you assault someone,
you assault a go or do youescape? And rarely were people losing all
of their good time. I thinkthat's the only way you're going to prevent
that type of behavior. If peopleknow if I assault a corrections officer,

(36:13):
right, if I assault another inmate, if I escape, if I don't
follow and fall in line with mywith my training and rehabilitation, that I
could lose all of my good time. I think that's the only way we're
gonna We're gonna make our prison saferand actually incentivize some of these more chronic
offenders to do the right thing andavoid the wrong. So again we're talking

(36:35):
about accountability, and again for anyonelistening, where I'm sitting here with Sheriff
Aaron Hanson, and we're discussing quitea few things, his history and current
laws, et cetera. And sowhen they have them in jail, is

(36:58):
there specific programs that they have todo across you know, a twelve week
program that they have to complete orare they literally allowed to just do their
time? Sit there, work out, eat, read a book and that's
it, you know. I thinkone great guest for you to have on
would be Mike Chipman, who's thepresident of the FLP Lodge eighty eight.

(37:20):
He's the president of the Corrections OfficersPolice Union, the Fraternal Order Police Lodge
eighty eight. I think he couldgive you a great glimpse into what happens.
I know that you know, thebureaucrats will tell you that that there
is programming available, and I dobelieve that it is available inside the prisons.

(37:43):
I don't know if it's available toeveryone in the numbers that we need
it, but not mandatory based onlack of infrastructure. But it's not mandatory
as I understand most of it.Some may be depending on your crime,
but I do I do. Ihave heard and this is not confirmed,
but it's my belief that if aninmate just wants to go in there and
sit in his cell or not engagein any and any type of therapy or

(38:10):
reprogramming, that that's their prerogative todo that under the current rules, and
as long as they don't commit anotheroffense, so they can get all their
good time and jam out seeing.To me, that should be another common
sensical thing. Okay, you don'twant to participate in any of these programs.
Guess what your twenty five is actuallytwenty five? Well, and I
tell you why. I'm a bigbeliever in that. You know, when

(38:32):
I got promoted to sergeant in twentyfourteen, and then twenty fifteen, I
went from road patrol sergeant in NortheastPrecinct to the gang unit. That was
right around the same time that Istarted having teenagers of my own, and
so I started to really realize that, hey, with structure, with consequences,
with rewards, becomes healthier kids andhealthier young people. And so I

(38:57):
remember, as a gang unit sergeanttouch moder or chief smatter or challenged all
of us as supervisors, says,hey, you're the best at stopping crime
today. I want you to problemsolve to stop crime. Tomorrow, And
so we got more involved with probation, juvenile probation, adult probation parle,
you know, helping with the homechecks, making sure that we're trying to

(39:17):
keep tabs on these high risk individuals. Eventually those efforts stopped. I'm convinced
because there was some bureaucrats in someof those systems that did not like the
statistics that were born out of it. A lot of guys were going back
to jail or prison because of UScatching them with guns, or US catching

(39:38):
them dealing drugs or doing something different. Why wouldn't they like that? Because
it makes the statistics look bad.But what I also found is that there
are those individuals that can be salvaged. There are those individuals that are screaming

(39:58):
for super They're screaming for consistency,They want the support. They don't know
how to do it. It's it'sif you never came from a culture of
consistency, structure, love, support, how do you just flip a switch
and go back to that. It'slike asking someone that's never run a ten

(40:21):
k to suddenly run a ten ktomorrow, and if you can't, we're
going to consider you without value.That's ridiculous. But we have to look
at that in a similar way whenit comes to people that need to they
need to get the support to geta more healthy, productive, law abiding
lifestyle. It takes time. Well, and back in the day, I
mean way back when it was theyjoined the military and got their life straight

(40:45):
right, but they went through aboot camp that was not friendly. Well,
I think I think back in theday, our instant, our educational
institutions were probably a little bit moreopen to moving supporting, you know,
young people going in the military orinto the skilled trades. I think for
too many years we got off track, and I think too many educators looked

(41:07):
at that maybe like a scarlet letter, you know, like, oh,
oh, you know, you needto go to college. You only have
value if you go to college.You don't need to be an electrician,
plumber. That's for that's for thedirty people. You know. Yeah,
you're you should you should be adoctor or a lawyer. Well, you
know, most people aren't meant togo to college. A lot of people
aren't meant to go to college,and we end up traveling them with college

(41:29):
debt. Yeah and uh, andthen digs them into an even deeper hole.
So I'm a big believer in redemption, but you can't you can't get
there unless you give people the structureand the support and the rewards and the
consequences to actually get to that point. And it takes time, it may

(41:51):
take years for some people. I'vementored young people in the system. I've
seen the people that have failed,and those are usually the ones that like
to cut corner and they want everythingnow and they want the good paying job
right now, and they fail.The ones that take the time, that
aren't perfect but learn from their mistakes, those are usually the ones that really

(42:13):
come through as the strongest people inthe end and want to be a productive
human. So what is the differencein crime and criminals from let's say,
when you were in gang unit versusthe ones you see now younger? We
had juvenile justice reform laws that occurredin twenty eighteen. Unfortunately it was Republicans

(42:38):
and Democrats that supported those laws.There was not a lot of public debate
on it, a lot of influencefrom outside sources, well funded sources that
said, hey, you know,it was kind of like what happened in
the eighties and nineties with the behavioralhealth infrastructure. Oh gosh, let's get
these people out of these behavioral healthinpatient residential care facilities. Let's give them

(43:01):
the community based services that we need, and everything will be hunky dory.
Well we saw that field, Well, this is kind of following the same
template. And in twenty eighteen lawswere changed. You used to be able
to detain high risk juvenile offenders ifyou could articulate that they were a risk
to themselves, kind of like thatthe young lady we talked about earlier with

(43:23):
the mom that was just a successfullyquote unquote discharge off juvenile probation. She
couldn't be detained very often because shewas a risk to herself, or if
you were a risk to other people'sproperty could be detained. That was also
stripped from the law, and sonow under the current law, the only

(43:44):
juveniles that can be detained are ifyou are an articulable risk to the safety
of the public, which I cantell you in practice as a high bar
And who determines that well, usuallyprobation at the front end when it comes
to juvenile intake at the time I'mof booking, and then ultimately it's a
judge. I think we've got somereally good juvenile judges in this community.

(44:06):
For the most part, they're great, but they need they need more resources.
They need more support in terms ofstatutory laws and in terms of locations
in which these high risk juveniles canbe sent. Whether it's having appropriate secure

(44:28):
correctional infrastructure for these juveniles if that'swhere they need to be, or we
need to change these state laws thatcurrently prohibit private alternatives to detention, private
group homes, private rehabilitative facilities frombeing locked. So, you know,
it's a tough spot to put ajudge in. Judges have to make this

(44:51):
decision. Do I follow the lawof the letter and get this kid out
of secured detention, release him tothis unsecured group home, only to know
that he's probably going to run,kill himself, kill someone else, or
commit a more serious crime and ruintheir life. What do I do?
And it's tough because the judges,by law, they're really not allowed to
advocate for law changes because they're ajudicial branch. Well, they're also being

(45:15):
pressured to lower numbers in juvenile facilitycrash. Yeah, but they may be
pressured, but I think, youknow, I trust, by and large,
most of our juvenile judges. Theymake the appropriate decisions, and they
take the shots. I've been inmeetings where they take shots from people in
the public, from the activist crowd, from the politicians. Why is this
kid still in detention? Well,you know what, if you want to

(45:36):
make that decision, go to CreightonLaw School, become a lawyer, and
become a judge, and then youcan make the tough decisions. I think
the politicians need to step back outof those conversations and trust the judges a
little more than they do. Soit kind of makes me wonder, you
know, if we can't, what'sthe point of detaining a child. It's

(45:57):
kind of like, you know,obviously some of these kids they don't have
the parent structure at home, rightthe parent is working three jobs, they're
not around them, or they theygot their own trauma they're dealing with,
or they just aren't parenting. Soto me, the juvenile system is almost
like the second parent. And ifeven they are saying, oh, successfully

(46:22):
discharged, which in my opinion shouldbe, did they literally just falsify a
legal document, lie on a legaldocument saying they successfully discharged because they didn't,
Well that's you know, and that'stheir prerogative, but I think that
you know, I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but
I think the law, probably thecurrent law, gives them the ability to

(46:42):
do it. Do I think theyshould have to prove it up? Yeah,
I do. I think that Ithink the standards should be higher for
successfully discharging. I think if you'regoing to successfully discharge a juvenile and seal
their record, it should because theydid actually did well, not because we
threw our hands up. But toyour point, this is why everyone should
care. I don't care where youlive in the state. Right now,

(47:05):
there's going to be someone listening tothis podcast going I live in a safe
neighborhood. Why should I care?Why should I want my tax dollars to
pay for more jail infrastructure. Whyshould I want my tax dollars to pay
to improve the wages of probation officersso we can get to keep and retain
the most qualified, committed professionals thatwe can. Why should I care about

(47:28):
investing in young people, or maybeinvesting in their parents while the young people
are detained, to make sure thekids can be released into a safer environment.
Why should I care about investing inmore behavioral health funding for young people.
Why should I care? Well,here's why you should care, whether
you live in Douglas County or farwestern end of Nebraska. There's some statistics

(47:52):
that was recently done via study andit showed for every juvenile or fender that
eventually becomes an adult offender that I'mtrying to remember the exact number, but
it goes somewhere between three point fivemillion to five million dollars in cost for

(48:13):
just one juvenile offender as they traversethe criminal justice system from juvenile to adult,
three point five to five million dollarsin cost. So that's that's not
only in cost of theft, incost of crime denocent people, that's cost
to the criminal justice system to providethem with services. And then if you

(48:37):
add on the additional cost of lackof productivity because they're not qualified to work,
they're not going to work or paytaxes, the lack of productivity to
employers into business, then the numbergoes up even more to five million to
six point five million dollars per individualoffender. Now, when you start doing

(48:58):
the math behind that, those numbersbecome staggering, and that's where an Omaha
problem becomes a Nebraska problem becomes anational problem. We've got to invest in
holding young offenders and adult offenders accountable, giving them the structure and the support
and the consequences when they need itthat they need to actually improve. And

(49:22):
if they refuse to engage in thatprocess, then we need to have enough
infrastructure to keep them safe away frominnocent people. And to put that into
context of Carly, Carly's case alone, So there's uh, there's three let's
see three people shot her, fourguns in the room, a gun outside.

(49:45):
So times five, you know you'relooking at that's already twenty five million
dollars just on just on Carly's caseof the offenders involved. So yeah,
I think, you know, andI think especially when we're talking juveniles,
you know, I talk to Italk to experts in juvenile behavioral health and

(50:07):
juvenile rehabilitation. I've talked to thepeople that know how to do it right,
and I've talked to the people thatunfortunately are captured by the organizations that
are doing it wrong or they're nothaving results. And here's what I believe
to be true, especially when itcomes to those moderate high risk we're moderate
training to high risk kids. WhatI've been told by professionals is they need

(50:28):
intense residential therapy, psychiatric treatment ina secure psychiatric residential facility for at least
six months, but in most casesnine months to twelve months and in some
cases eighteen months. Okay, wherethey can't run away. They're getting the

(50:50):
psychiatric care that they need. Buteven if you do that, if you're
not investing in the family so thatthat kid is ready to get out and
get back into a healthy home,they're going to crash right back into bad
habits. And so part of whatI think we need, if I think
we need to start looking at,is Let's look at what Santa Francis House

(51:15):
is doing with the tiny home villagesfor homeless people that have proven that they
can earn their way back into thosehomes as they're trying to transition into into
a regular existence. Let's look atwhat fifty Mile March, the Veterans Group
is doing to try to support homelessveterans that prove that they want also to
live in a tiny home village thatthey're looking to create. Why can't we

(51:37):
create similar infrastructure for the parents,for these single moms or maybe these single
dads, or these young Maybe theseyoung couples or young parents that never really
should have had a kid at thatage, didn't have the family support,
maybe they were also a juvenile offenderthemselves. Give the tools to both incentivize

(51:58):
and also compel those parents to engagein this supportive structure and rehabilitation as well.
Help them get their driver's license,help them get their ged, help
them get some job skills, helpthem with financial education, help them get
a job, help them get asavings account under their belt. So when
that young kid comes back into theirlife, they're both healthier after that process,

(52:24):
and they both can move on healthyand they support each other. They
have a little bit of confidence andself worth. And it's ironic that you
said the Siana Francis House, becauseI felt like I don't remember who I
was talking to. But even ifyou go to the homeless shelters, there's
rules and they have no problems.If you're not in there by a certain

(52:45):
time, the doors are locked andthat's it. You're there for a certain
time period, and if you actup or do whatever, you're out.
No, you're exactly right. Youknow all the shelters look, they don't
bar you if you're an addict.You just can't be using, you can't
be under the influence, you can'tbe right influence of drugs or alcohol.
They don't bar you if you havebehavioral health problems. You just have to

(53:05):
follow within the rules and be agood neighbor to the people living in the
bunk next to you. And ifyou do that, then they have other
programs. If you prove that you'reworthy and you're willing to invest yourself to
try to recover, then they haveprograms where they can continue to transition you
either into job skills or addiction counseling, sobriety inpatient where they'll let you live.

(53:29):
They have eighty beds in the MiracleCenter over in the Santa Francis House
for men and women to live inpatient. They'll help them with sobriety,
they'll help them build their foundation.They'll help them with employment. They'll give
them jobs on site. That ishow ultimately we will help people, not
just by dumping them out of corrections, you know, or giving them no

(53:53):
supervision, no rewards, no consequences. We've got to get fresh eyes at
how we do all of these thingsif we truly want to handle it and
that's going to cost money. It'snot going to be free, but I
think the investment that we spend onthat will pay off one hundred times fold
generations down the road. Well,let's be real. Everything costs money.

(54:14):
Even the community programs that we givegrants to that cost money, and if
they're failing. My biggest thing iswe're literally like, we're talking about a
homeless shelter with grown adults and theyand they abide by rules, but some
of them have mental health issues andthey can still abide by those rules.
But we're when we discuss juveniles,we expect a everyone wants to say,

(54:36):
well, their brain isn't their brainisn't developed properly yet, their brain isn't
they need more structure because of thatreason, And we're just putting them in
a home that they know they canrun out of and that's not helping.
And think think of it if thesewere our kids. Where if our kids
ran away from home at two o'clockin the morning every night, came back
at whatever hour they wanted to thenext day, and there was no consequences

(54:58):
for that. Teen brains will learnthat you're okay with that, that they'll
think this is acceptable. Same thingwith drug use and alcohol use teen brains.
If there's not appropriate consequences for that, even for regular run of the
mill kids anywhere in the county,that sends the wrong message. That lack
of consequences send the wrong message.So think now, you're a fourteen year

(55:21):
old kid. You know, youwere born to a mother who was fifteen
years old at the time. You'vebeen raised in poverty, You never had
structure, You never knew if thelight switch was going to turn the lights
on, or if there's going tobe food in the fridge, and the
only way you survived is hustling,maybe stealing, maybe getting money from or

(55:43):
food from your fellow gang members.And if now you're under the system's supervision
and they give you almost the sametype of supervision that you got at home,
what does that tell you? Thattells you that you should have no
respect in a civil society or therules of a civil society, that there
really are no rules. And Ithink, unfortunately we see that with far

(56:07):
too many high risk kids in thesystem, and as a society, as
government officials, we have ourselves toblame. And unless we talk about these
examples publicly, they're tough to talkabout, they're sensitive to talk about.
They hurt people's feelings, they evokeemotional responses. But we'll never fix it
if we're not honest with ourselves aboutthe challenge. I wholeheartedly agree, and

(56:30):
sometimes I wonder if it's not bydesign. Thank you for being here,
thank you for talking to me.I'm sure we'll talk again, and I
appreciate it. Thank you ever keepdoing what you're doing. Please, you're
doing great work. And thank youfor listening today, and as always,
I appreciate it. And if youwant to learn more about carlyrain dot com,

(56:50):
how you can get involved, howyou can help, there is a
place where you can learn all ofthose things. Donate, volunteer, contact
your legislatures and your elected officials.Carl Rain dot com. This is far

(57:14):
from over. I am far fromover. It helpens you laugh at me.