Douglas should explain his judicial philosophy

Just days after the highly publicized announcement by federal and local officials of a major initiative to get guns and their criminal users off the streets of Youngstown, Judge Robert A. Douglas Jr. of the municipal court delivered a disturbing message to the city's lawbreakers in sentencing Joseph L. Sanders to only three days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon.
Sanders had been arrested over the weekend as part of the Gun Reduction Interdiction Project -- GRIP -- that U.S. Attorney Greg White contended would go a long way toward reducing gun violence in Youngstown. But by his actions, Judge Douglas seemed to suggest that neither the feds nor the city police have an understanding of what Youngstown's crime epidemic is all about. Given that, we urge Douglas to publicly share his thoughts about crime and punishment.
Sanders, who sometimes uses the alias Joseph Williams, could have received 180 days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon. Instead, the judge gave him three days -- with credit for time served -- and placed him on nine months' probation. He also fined Sanders $100. From where we sit, the sentence certainly defines "judicial slap on the wrist." Douglas owes the community an explanation.
Low bonds
Why? Because in 2001, the voters of the city gave him another term in office, even though his challenger in the Democratic primary, Anthony J. Farris, an assistant Youngstown city prosecutor, claimed that the incumbent was the most lenient of the three judges in the municipal court. Farris also criticized Douglas for being part of a criminal justice system that had made low bonds for individuals charged with violent crimes standard operating procedure.
As we noted in an editorial in which we endorsed Douglas for the Democratic nomination, "Stacking of probation was a problem in the 1990s and it still is today. Irregular court hours were a problem in the last decade in the Youngstown Municipal Court as they are today."
Despite our criticism of the court, we endorsed the incumbent because we felt that his challenger had not done enough independent analysis of the judge's record to support the claims he was making on the campaign trail.
Our support of Douglas gives us standing to now question his handling of the Sanders case. The accused pleaded no contest to carrying a concealed weapon. The charge was a misdemeanor because the gun found on him was not loaded; if loaded, the charge would have been a felony.
Even so, Sanders should have had the book thrown at him. His municipal court records show that he owes more than $1,000 in fines and costs on 11 cases. His convictions include driving under suspension, theft, escape (amended to attempted), public indecency, receiving stolen property (amended to unauthorized use of a vehicle.)
He had been given a chance to do community service instead of paying the fines and costs. He refused.
This is an individual who has no respect for the law. Yet, he gets a major break from the court.
Zero tolerance
Douglas must know that such actions undermine the whole zero-tolerance concept of fighting crime in a city that has had one of the highest per capita homicide rates in the country.
And he certainly can't ignore the fact that his pronouncements from the bench do echo through the community.
The federal government has joined forces with city and county law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice systems to get guns off the streets.
If Douglas has misgivings about the initiative he should say so -- publicly.