Court Opinion

ID: 9666984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:32:02.892337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.945470
License: Public Domain

DAY, J.
(concurring). I write this concurrence to the majority opinion in response to the concurrence written by its author. That concurrence is critical of both John Doe statutes, secs. 968.26 and 968.02(3), Stats., which provide for judicial review where a district attorney refuses to prosecute.
The concurrence refers to the "awesome power of the state" in criminal matters. To the ever increasing army of crime victims, "awesome impotence" of government would appear to be a more accurate description. President Bush has recently requested congress for a multi-billion dollar program to build more federal prisons, increase law enforcement personnel and "win back the streets" of our large cities where armed thugs terrorize the citizenry. We now have Washington, D.C. winning the title of "Murder Capitol of the World."
*370An article by Richard B. Abell, Assistant United States Attorney General, in charge of the Office of Justice Programs, appearing in the March 21, 1989 issue of the Wall Street Journal shows the fact is that the apprehension and imprisonment of criminals for substantial periods of time "works." That is it cuts down the amount of crime and saves society billions of dollars. Building prisons and utilizing them is a good investment. The article points out that a Rand Corporation study shows that in 1983 there were 42.5 million victim-izations. In a country of 250 million that is a shocking statistic. "We find a typical offender in the survey is responsible for $430,000 in crime costs. The costs to imprison this offender for one year is $25,000. Thus a year in prison costs $405,000 less than a year of criminal activity. A year of crime is seventeen times more expensive for society than a year in prison." A chart accompanying the Abell article shows a direct correlation between incarceration rates and the crime rate. In 1960 the chance that an offender (in Part I Crimes, i.e., Homicide, forceable rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft) would receive a prison sentence was 6.2 percent per 100 crimes. The number of Part I Crimes was less than 2 percent per 100 population. In 1974 the chances for imprisonment fell to 2.1 percent and the number of crimes rose to 4.8 percent per 100 population.
What all the statistics on monetary crime costs do not reflect is the "misery index," the individual physical and emotional suffering of those crime victims and their families who have been murdered, beaten, robbed and "ripped off by the criminal element in our midst.
In this period when we see interest in "victim's rights" coming to the fore, certainly having one's tormentor brought to justice should be near the top of any *371victim's rights program, second only to the right not to be a victim in the first place.
This is not, as the author of the majority opinion in his concurrence sees it, as somehow a tendency in the direction of "the pernicious practice of private prosecutions" nor does it "allow attorneys for private persons to appear as prosecutors" (Chief Justice Heffernan concurring, p. 367). Neither statute allows private counsel to act as prosecutor. Prosecution can only be done by the elected district attorney or special prosecutors appointed by the courts. Nowhere do our statutes permit private attorneys representing victims to prosecute and try criminal defendants.
The John Doe provisions have been frequently used by district attorneys to ferret out the perpetrators of crime where ordinary investigative procedures fail. I believe it would be a mistake to alter a procedure that has served us well since before statehood. Section 968.02(3), Stats., is a clear expression of legislative intent that victim's have recourse to the courts when a district attorney refuses to act.1
*372Crime victims should have recourse to the judicial branch when the executive branch fails to respond. This seems to me to be in keeping with constitutional rights. The first amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Wisconsin Constitution also provides in art. I, sec. 4: "The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged." The statutory provisions here under consideration are a legislative codification of the right to petition the judicial branch for a "redress of grievances" when that is appropriate.
I would retain these statutes.

 Section 968.02, Stats., was established in 1969 by chapter 255, Laws of 1969. The accompanying comments to the section stated in part:
Sub. (3) provides a check upon the district attorney who fails to authorize the issuance of a complaint, when one should have been issued, by providing for a judge to authorize its issuance.
Sub. (3) also provides a vehicle for the issuance of complaints when the district attorney is unavailable.
The section is based upon s. 6.01 of the ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure.
Section 6.02(3) of the Model Code (Tent. Draft No. 1, 1966), provided:
(3) Filing by Order of a Judicial Officer. In any case in which a prosecuting attorney refuses to issue a complaint, a judicial officer *372may permit the filing of a complaint if, after hearing the complainant and the prosecuting attorney, he finds there is reasonable cause to believe that the person named in the complaint has committed the offense charged.
This subsection was included to provide a check upon the prosecutor's decisions not to issue complaints. Id. Note on Section 6.02. The judge was "given power to permit the filing of a complaint over the objection of the prosecutor . . .." Id.
The Criminal Procedure Code Revision Committee reviewed these provisions. Notes from the committee meetings of November 17 and 18 (year unknown), show that the Model Code was modified by the Committee. Section 968.02(3), Stats., was created by adding the words "or is unavailable" to the text and "after a general discussion, it was decided to delete the last part of (3) making it read only: 'In any case in which a district attorney refuses or is unavailable to issue a complaint, a judge may permit the filing of a complaint.' " Drafting Record of Chapter 255, Laws of 1969, Legislative Reference Bureau.