RUMFORD — An Oxford County Superior Court felony theft case earlier this month has raised the ire of members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maine.
They’re incensed that a man considered legally blind by the court would receive no jail time and be required to only reimburse the victim a fraction of the value of her household belongings he admitted stealing.
On Nov. 14, Charles E. Hamilton, 47, of Rangeley Place in Rumford pleaded guilty to stealing items valued at $11,000 from his neighbor’s house in May. As part of the plea bargain, a felony burglary charge was dismissed.
Justice Robert W. Clifford gave Hamilton a two-year deferred disposition. That means he must make restitution of $1,200 at $50 a month through the District Attorney’s Office and refrain from committing another crime.
When the case began, Hamilton gingerly approached his court-appointed lawyer Maurice Porter and Clifford, sweeping a walking cane for the blind from side to side ahead of him.
Prosecutor Joseph O’Connor acknowledged during the bench trial that Hamilton is legally blind and on disability.
Clifford said the restitution amount is based on Hamilton’s financial condition. If he fails to meet the obligation, he faces up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
When asked Friday if he had any regrets or had received any reaction from the public since pleading guilty, Hamilton said he couldn’t comment, because his case was still before the court.
“I don’t know what I’m allowed to say,” he said.
Even though Hamilton pleaded guilty and received a deferred disposition, he is correct. The case is still before the court, Rosemary Reese, legal secretary for the District Attorney’s Office in Paris, said Friday.
She said that if Hamilton makes the required restitution, commits no further crime and abides by the conditions of the disposition, he will be allowed to plead guilty to a Class D misdemeanor theft and any other charges would be dismissed.
Speaking on behalf of O’Connor, Reese said the plea bargain and deferred disposition were not based on Hamilton being legally blind or on disability income.
According to O’Connor, Reese said the victim knew Hamilton and let him live in her house “and she allowed him to take some things, so there was a whole bunch of issues with proof on this case.”
Reese said some items were recovered and some were not.
“There was insufficient evidence,” Reese said. “Basically, (O’Connor) could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Patricia Estes and Mark Tardif of the National Federation of the Blind of Maine and Steve Hoad, a former member, said they believe blindness did factor into the court’s decision.
They contacted the Sun Journal and said they were outraged after learning about the case’s outcome during a discussion about it on Nov. 15 at a federation meeting.
Estes, of Auburn, is the federation’s vice president. Estes, Tardif of Grand Isle and Hoad of Windsor are blind.
“The outrage that someone can weasel out of felony theft with no time served and next to no compensation is the same outrage anyone would feel upon hearing such a miscarriage of justice,” Estes stated Tuesday by email.
“Blindness had no business factoring into the case at all,” she said. “That it did is all the more outrageous.”
“In my opinion, Hamilton should have been punished to the full extent the law allows,” Tardif wrote in a letter to the Sun Journal published Tuesday.
“Unfortunately, the legal establishment and Hamilton used stereotypes regarding the blind that responsible blind people have been trying to show are just not accurate.
“Hamilton seems to have the idea that because he is blind the consequences of his criminal behavior should be lessened for him,” Tardif said.
“The circumstances may be a real pitfall in the metering out of justice,” Hoad said Thursday by email.
“Blind people, whether partially sighted or not, can and do work,” Hoad said.
“Although the unemployment rate is high among the blind, there are many well-trained and capable individuals ready for the workforce whose reputation may be negatively affected by any inference that pity rather than justice was involved in this case.”
Tardif said the National Federation of the Blind of Maine is a consumer organization of blind people and their sighted supporters whose intention is to empower blind people to live independent, integrated lives as much as possible.
Estes and Tardif said they’ve been working for years to change perceptions about the blind.
“Maine, however, is behind the curve,” Estes said. “The pity for this blind thief was not based on fact, it seems to me, and the blind of Maine who have worked so hard to work, to be educated and trained, and to be respected as an individual will be hard for the next potential employer, admissions office or job training program to accept.”
“Most of us are law-abiding, responsible citizens who expect to be treated on an equal basis with the sighted,” Tardif said.
Hoad agreed.
“We are not interested in pity,” Hoad said. “We are living in the real world where reality is exactly the type of treatment we expect.”
tkarkos@sunjournal.com
Not to blind to see things to take.
criminals always play the victim, liberals believe it and go easy on them.
just like most murderers plead not guilty by reason of insanity, some of them get away with it.
Right….that’s why liberals go easy on war criminals like Kissinger, Cheney, Clinton, Bush, etc…
yes, they do.
in fact, many of the liberals that i’ve talked to love clinton and think he was great whilst in office.
The liberals are outraged by the abuse of women…unless it is done by one of the liberals in power. Then they swoon at the mere mention of his name. Man you just can NOT make this stuff up.
Obama must be in the etc.
Really? What has Obama got to do with Rumford Maine?
From now on I’m just flagging every comment where someone starts in w/ the “its the liberals/conservatives” fault. That has NOTHING to do with this story and you are just trolling people and trying to start trouble.
I don’t care if people don’t like me flagging it, and if BDN doesn’t want me to do it they can ban me.
So sick of you robots and your ‘everything is partisan’ bulls–t.
You aren’t the only one……. ;)
Technically, you’re 100% correct. One of the BDN’s terms of use/guidance is to stay on topic. To some, everything is partisan political, and I’m not making excuses for them. They just need to learn to stick to the topic.
I might have to join you on this one…Flag team ahoy!
If I remember right, the last story on him said he lived next door and gained access to her place through a cellar window. Knew then that he and his waving white stick were a fraud. I pictured an old courtroom movie of a guy in a neck brace being wheeled into court. No pun intended, but anybody could see that!
so he’s on disability, so our tax dollars are this loser’s income.
so really, we’re paying the victim back.
welcome to our justice system.
During college, i worked at a Cleveland Circle convenience store for 2 months.
A blind man would come in with a friend, and loiter around the store coffee machine.
The blind man was stealing items in the store when the friend told him the store was busy. We were told not to confront the blind male.
Incidentally, the 3rd world foreigners running the store made me work 18 hour shifts, no extra over time pay. Then come back 6 hours later for another 8-10 hour shift.
‘made’ you work 18 hour shifts? I don’t think so if you had a free will.
People who celebrate their free will end up on welfare.
e….
Agreed, that can happen but not necessarily. There’re many employers who expect that people have a life outside of normal working hours.
And, so what else is new. He, and his LAWYER, used his disability to curcumvent the law. The puppy judge wagged his tail, and went along with the whole thing. Again I say….. What else is new.
It sounds like the lighter sentence had more to do with weak evidence than it did with the fact that he was blind. The National Federation of the Lind in Maine might have been a little quick with their outrage on this one. I do agree with them when they say blindness should not enter into the severity of the sentence if a crime was indeed committed.
do i have to say it? the maine judiciary and a sight impaired individual,the blind leading the blind.