Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Is an 18-Month Sentence Too Little, Too Much, or Just Right?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Amber Nelson

by James A. Bacon

By way of a press release from the Attorney General’s Office, Bacon’s Rebellion has learned of a heinous case in which a certain Amber Nelson has been sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay restitution of $19,200 for elder neglect and abuse. I would invite readers to weigh in on the question of whether the sentence is anything close to appropriate given the nature of the crime.

Nelson was a paid personal-care services attendant for an unnamed victim in Washington County. Medicaid paid her to perform personal care services, helping with activities of daily living such as maintaining personal hygiene and eating properly.

In September 2019 the Washington County Department of Social Services removed the victim from Nelson’s care. An investigation revealed that the victim had been subjected to filthy conditions, had not been fed properly, had not been bathed, and had not been given given medications. The victim had a large cancerous mass on his/her head and weighed only 65 pounds. Nelson was arrested the following month, and charged by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department.

Nelson pled guilty to felony abuse and neglect of an incapacitated adult, and was sentenced to ten years, with all but 18 months suspended. She was also ordered to pay restitution to the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services. 

Perhaps there were exonerating circumstances not mentioned in the press release, but based on what we know… Was justice done? Is 18 months in jail remotely sufficient chastisement for Nelson’s ongoing neglect and betrayal of trust…. day after day, after day? This was not a one-time action committed in the heat of passion. The neglect was deliberate and sustained.

The AG’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit helped with the case. Said Herring in the press release: “Individuals who take advantage of Virginians who are incapacitated or cannot defend themselves must be held accountable for the harm that they have caused.”

Was Nelson held fully accountable? Or should we “give her a second chance” because “she’s not a threat to society” or some-such nonsense?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

36 responses to “Is an 18-Month Sentence Too Little, Too Much, or Just Right?”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    What has Capt Sherlock been saying about the lack of inspectors for Medicaid funded nursing homes? Sounds like the same kind of thing here. Nobody ever checked up on Amber’s work? Does that sound like a competent management practice to anybody? Once again, government failed.

    I agree with Steve – if this is a first offense then a 10 year sentence with 18 months to be served followed by probation seems on the low side of the reasonable zone.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      So, it’s a government failure because we tax people to pay for the Medicaid but we don’t tax them “enough” to pay for inspectors?

      “failure of govt” = Mo Money from taxpayers? 😉

      1. CJBova Avatar
        CJBova

        It’s a failure of government to allocate the necessary funds for inspectors and a policy analyst as requested by the office responsible for inspections and other services. There’s enough in the state treasury without new taxes. It’s a choice to not fund whats needed.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Is that the Governor or GA?

          Isn’t it ironic that it’s the Gov/taxpayers that are paying for this – at the same time Conservatives were opposed to it (medicaid) and now, it’s a “fail”because we did not spend enough taxpayer money?

          People also spend out of pocket for this kind of care. Do we expect govt to use taxpayer money to inspect it all?

          Isn’t this yet another example of “expanding” government and regulation and spending MO money?

          I thought you Conservative types were opposed to this nanny govt?

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Is that the Governor or GA?

          Isn’t it ironic that it’s the Gov/taxpayers that are paying for this – at the same time Conservatives were opposed to it (medicaid) and now, it’s a “fail”because we did not spend enough taxpayer money?

          People also spend out of pocket for this kind of care. Do we expect govt to use taxpayer money to inspect it all?

          Isn’t this yet another example of “expanding” government and regulation and spending MO money?

          I thought you Conservative types were opposed to this nanny govt?

          1. CJBova Avatar
            CJBova

            It’s not nanny government; it’s supposed to be a functioning government, not one bought off by campaign contributions and more profit to owners.

            Try reading https://www.baconsrebellion.com/how-many-nursing-home-exposes-does-it-take-to-wake-people-up/
            and

            https://www.baconsrebellion.com/the-real-nursing-home-scandal-in-virginia/

            Really reading them before going off on another tangent.

            Governor Ralph and his GA have not supported OLC so that they can fulfill their responsibilities.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Carol – how did this woman “buy off” functioning government with campaign donations?

            Conservatives have fought against taxpayers paying for Medicaid to start with and are the reason why inspections are not funded or reimbursements lower than needed.

            If the Conservatives had prevailed on Medicaid, there would be no taxpayer money for any of this to start with. We niggardly fund these things then turn around and claim “fail”. when it’s insufficient to do it right.

            We are arguing for MORE MONEY for more regulations and inspections, right?

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Again, exactly right. When the men and women who wrote software for me did their work I insisted on peer review. Why? Because people make mistakes.

            When I mowed lawns and did yard work in the summers in college a supervisor came by the property where I was working to make sure I did the right job and did it well. Why? Because people make mistakes.

            Only in government is quality control considered unnecessary.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not necessarily true, at least across the board. Every day, all of us use VDOT traffic signals and our life depends on it and how many of us have died because of a “quality control” issue with those signals.

            The basic problem with Medicaid and some other things like Transit is we have folks who resent the taxes collected to pay for them and they argue against more funding for things like inspections including the nursing homes. Those same folks argue that the govt should not be putting out more and more regulations and red tape that hobbles commerce and increases costs, yadda yadda…

            Can’t have it both ways.

            Are the folks who say there should be more inspections essentially advocating for higher taxes to pay for them?

            I bet not.

        3. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Exactly right.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So you’re both advocating for higher taxes to pay for this?

            or are you expecting it for “free” ?

            😉

  2. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    She should serve at least five if not the full ten. Actions should have real consequences. Elder neglect and abuse is unconscionable.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      This is becoming a more and more common crime now that the population is aging. Many older people – and their family want to do what they can to keep their elders in their own homes as opposed to going to a nursing home (where abuse also occurs).

      Like everything else in life, there are posers… in it for whatever they can get out of it.

      I’m not sure I buy the idea that this is a “government failure”. Lots of people get scammed by scum balls these days… the government is no more immune than individals.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      This is becoming a more and more common crime now that the population is aging. Many older people – and their family want to do what they can to keep their elders in their own homes as opposed to going to a nursing home (where abuse also occurs).

      Like everything else in life, there are posers… in it for whatever they can get out of it.

      I’m not sure I buy the idea that this is a “government failure”. Lots of people get scammed by scum balls these days… the government is no more immune than individals.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    A felony conviction with ten years, 18 months to serve (but the full ten hanging out there) is not exactly a slap on the wrist. We don’t know what facts might have complicated the case in front of a trial court had she not copped a plea. We also don’t know if this was a first offense or she had priors. On its face, seems reasonable.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I’ve often had the thought of long probations, perhaps with short terms in prison, after which records are expunged would serve society better.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I’ve often had the thought of long probations, perhaps with short terms in prison, after which records are expunged would serve society better.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        I think the crime should weigh heavy on the punishment doled out. There are also lots of superfluous laws that need to be stricken from the books.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        I think the crime should weigh heavy on the punishment doled out. There are also lots of superfluous laws that need to be stricken from the books.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yes, like eating ice cream on Sunday. Oklahoma, I think. What was wrong with the Sooner who came up with that?

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Maybe they were lactose intolerant and the plumbing need a day of “rest”.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    There are two sides to this. This conviction will essentially turn her into a ward of the state in the future, no?

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      No.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep. Felony conviction = loss of job opportunity.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          She’s already convicted. Jim is asking about the sentencing.

        2. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Never mind. I should have known you would not be able to figure out why I respond to some of you comments the way I do.

          N_N would have figured it out by now, but you’re no N_N.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            And perhaps even more important, I’m no “Wayne” either…

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep. Felony conviction = loss of job opportunity.

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      The question was prefaced by: “Perhaps there were exonerating circumstances not mentioned in the press release, but based on what we know…”, so your “two sides to every story” remark was extraneous and unnecessary.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Nope. The two sides are still that REGARDESS of the circumstances. You just see it differently which is your right but it’s wrong with regard to my view. Got that?

        EVERY imprisoning has that other side to it – where you are essentially rendering a potentially productive person to be another ward of the state.

        .. no matter the circumstanes…..

        A much better approach would be one in which the guilty would provide restitution but NOT be rendered a ward of the state.

        For violent folks, all bets are off –

        That’s MY VIEW. Your mileage / opinion may wel differ.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Nope. The two sides are still that REGARDESS of the circumstances. You just see it differently which is your right but it’s wrong with regard to my view. Got that?

        EVERY imprisoning has that other side to it – where you are essentially rendering a potentially productive person to be another ward of the state.

        .. no matter the circumstanes…..

        A much better approach would be one in which the guilty would provide restitution but NOT be rendered a ward of the state.

        For violent folks, all bets are off –

        That’s MY VIEW. Your mileage / opinion may wel differ.

  5. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Based on what we know, I would say the prison sentence is reasonable but the financial punishment is not. The “care provider” should be required to return every single penny she was paid by the taxpayers (via Medicaid) to care for the patient. She should also be subject to a very large fine. Finally, assuming the “restitution” is going to be paid to the victim, I think that amount should be a good bit higher.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Dammit! Now I’m gonna be that guy. Exonerate means to absolve of blame. Punishing someome absolved of blame would, perhaps, be the very definition of draconian.

    Perhaps, extenuating circumstances would be preferable when attenuating a sentence. Or, attenuating circumstances works then too.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      I would also have used the word “extenuating”, but I did not mention it previously because I did not want to be “that guy”…

      …right then.

      😉

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Maybe next time, he’ll run it past us first. Even the best have editors.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Matt hit it in general. No one knows exactly how many federal laws there are. There is no exact count — estimates are in the 10s of 1000s. Then throw in treaties, State laws, local ordinances and everyone is likely breaking the “law” even while they’re sleeping.

    When you combine that with the availability public records, and their use in getting loans, insurance, housing, a job, accepted to college, a security clearance, etc., then ANY “debt to society” becomes a lifelong debt.

    Given that, “Is any sentence inappropriate?” What does it mean to even ask?

Leave a Reply

Read More