Crime and Punishment
Sep. 30th, 2004 09:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teddywolfLast night I was watching 60 Minutes. The first story was about a man who had been a college professor for the past fifteen years. He was, by accounts, a very good teacher and a nice guy. However, recently he was blocked from teaching.
Why?
Well, when he was young he committed a triple homicide in Texas. He had been given three consecutive life sentences.
While in prison he earned a Bachelor's degree. He changed a lot. After 12 1/2 years a written evaluation stated that there was nothing he more could do to improve rehabilitate himself further as he was fully rehabilitated; he was let out of prison on lifetime parole. He earned more degrees and started teaching at universities, and by accounts his students appreciate his work greatly.
As I've gotten older I've noticed a lot more punishment given for crimes of all sorts. In my opinion some of these crimes really need to be punished more severely, such as rape; others are far too severe and getting worse, such as illegal drug use. Point being, more and more the jail time and parole system are no longer serving as 'you did the crime, you spent the time.' There are sexual offenders lists and requirements for same to tell everybody in their neighborhood that they have been previously convicted for a sex crime. There's the loss of right to vote in most states without some sort of action by the governor, the loss of right to serve on a jury in many others. Many states have rules about former felons owning guns, regardless of the felony; some have more restrcitive rules that have to do with courtroom appearences, such as if you've ever had a restraining order put out on you.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend toward people, especially politicos, being tough on criminals and calling it being tough on crime. Being tough on crime means working to mitigate the root causes. Being tough on criminals means punishing them more than necessary.
Ayesha and I discussed this issue, and this man in particular. She had a couple of snarky comments, basically boiled down to the idea that if the guy hadn't been white he would probably still be in jail. I don't challenge this assertion; she's quite possibly right. Most of her comments were not snarky, and it was an interesting conversation. The topic went over to the purpose of our criminal legal system. Is the purpose supposed to be punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination? On this point she wavered. Yes, rehabilitation is a good idea, but isn't punishment needed? she asked.
My stated opinion: yes, punishment is necessary, but punishment should be a means to the end result of rehabilitation and not the end itself. Rehabilitation is showing someone the error of their ways and encouraging them to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of never committing that act, or related acts, ever again. I view it as a useful tack to take.
The man I saw during the interview was once a boy who committed a horrible crime. The man I saw would never do such a thing. I'll be the first to say that only 12 1/2 years for triple homicide is flatly astonishing; that said, he did it. On the interview he said he did everything he could to be rehabilitated, which was borne out by a jailer in Taxes saying he had done so. He posed the question: "What more can I do? If somebody tells me I'll do it."
So: barring supporting the families of the people he killed so long ago, what more can he do? And should he be barred from teaching?
Why?
Well, when he was young he committed a triple homicide in Texas. He had been given three consecutive life sentences.
While in prison he earned a Bachelor's degree. He changed a lot. After 12 1/2 years a written evaluation stated that there was nothing he more could do to improve rehabilitate himself further as he was fully rehabilitated; he was let out of prison on lifetime parole. He earned more degrees and started teaching at universities, and by accounts his students appreciate his work greatly.
As I've gotten older I've noticed a lot more punishment given for crimes of all sorts. In my opinion some of these crimes really need to be punished more severely, such as rape; others are far too severe and getting worse, such as illegal drug use. Point being, more and more the jail time and parole system are no longer serving as 'you did the crime, you spent the time.' There are sexual offenders lists and requirements for same to tell everybody in their neighborhood that they have been previously convicted for a sex crime. There's the loss of right to vote in most states without some sort of action by the governor, the loss of right to serve on a jury in many others. Many states have rules about former felons owning guns, regardless of the felony; some have more restrcitive rules that have to do with courtroom appearences, such as if you've ever had a restraining order put out on you.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend toward people, especially politicos, being tough on criminals and calling it being tough on crime. Being tough on crime means working to mitigate the root causes. Being tough on criminals means punishing them more than necessary.
Ayesha and I discussed this issue, and this man in particular. She had a couple of snarky comments, basically boiled down to the idea that if the guy hadn't been white he would probably still be in jail. I don't challenge this assertion; she's quite possibly right. Most of her comments were not snarky, and it was an interesting conversation. The topic went over to the purpose of our criminal legal system. Is the purpose supposed to be punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination? On this point she wavered. Yes, rehabilitation is a good idea, but isn't punishment needed? she asked.
My stated opinion: yes, punishment is necessary, but punishment should be a means to the end result of rehabilitation and not the end itself. Rehabilitation is showing someone the error of their ways and encouraging them to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of never committing that act, or related acts, ever again. I view it as a useful tack to take.
The man I saw during the interview was once a boy who committed a horrible crime. The man I saw would never do such a thing. I'll be the first to say that only 12 1/2 years for triple homicide is flatly astonishing; that said, he did it. On the interview he said he did everything he could to be rehabilitated, which was borne out by a jailer in Taxes saying he had done so. He posed the question: "What more can I do? If somebody tells me I'll do it."
So: barring supporting the families of the people he killed so long ago, what more can he do? And should he be barred from teaching?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:21 am (UTC)And what is yours?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:29 am (UTC)I read an interesting (and VERY long) book recently entitled "The Children's War". In the book the author - a Eurpoean - makes a point that Americans do not see criminals as fully human, but as a class of subhumans who do not deserve humane treatment. I think there is something to this viewpoint...
But I think the legal problems of tracking sexual predators after they are released from prison is very simple - keep them in for much, much longer. Then we wouldn't have people frightened because the local child rapist served 18 months of a three year sentence and got out on good behavior (of course, since such people are cowards who only pick on the weak and there are no children to abuse in jail) and now is sitting on the porch watching their kids play outside... how about a real sentence, like, 40 years or so, for hurting kids? Then when they got out they would hopefully be too old or frightened of going back to dare be so bold as to do it again. Child molestors and rapists have the highest recidivism rate of any type of criminal, it is nearly inpossible to rehabilitate them. They almost always do it again, and the justice system needs to realize this and adjust the penalties appropriately.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 11:24 am (UTC)Very nicely put.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 07:39 am (UTC)(non-snarky comment) What more can he do? I don't know. I didn't see the segment on 60 minutes, but I think if the system has said he's done his time, he has. They let him go, so... IMO, he's DONE what he's NEEDED TO DO.
Should he be barred from teaching? Well, in a free market economy, I would say, that's up to the school. If they don't want to employ a former felon, that's their right as a business.
Should the Government prevent him from teaching? That's up to the people who vote. Do you want former felons teaching in your public colleges and universities? If not, you'd better pass some legislation. Otherwise, you get what you get. I know that University of Kansas has no problem letting felons work for them, I've gotten some felons some relatively decent jobs in housekeeping and food service at KU. It's still owned and operated by the State, it's still a Public University. And Felons Work There.
So... on the basis that he's killed three people, and therefore must not be a teacher, I think that's pretty bogus. At the same time, society, people, businesses and such have the privilege of determining the rights we give people convicted of felonies. Breaking the law should not be without consequences, otherwise what's the point of the law in the first place?
Is it unfortunate that this man is being prevented from teaching? Yes. It seems that he has developed into a good and caring person, who has found his true talent, and has been able to turn himself around and benefit society, and that should always be rewarded.
At the same time, he was convicted (and I assume he's not arguing the fact) of a horrible crime. He will pay for that crime the rest of his life. His liberties are being affected by his actions -- it's karma, plain and simple.
So, to restate my snarkiness: There's got to be a way that he can use his talent for teaching to reach out to other people in prison, show them that there IS hope, there IS a way out of the cycle of violence, crime, hate. There are situations where the system won't punish them forever.
But that's just one perspective from one pinko-commie style social worker, who thinks that prison is too cushy, the justice system doesn't work very well, and people should all just get along.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 08:06 am (UTC)He's out. not even on parole. I think it was 8 years total in prison. The cops told me this, because he had been caught stalking another woman at his new home in another state, and they asked me about the old conviction since I was a "witness" being the roommate.
I also have another experience, with a different person. In the course of my job years ago, I struck up a friendship with one of my support vendors. Who just happened to be a person who had previously spent 10 years in prison for 2nd degree murder. He is apparently a well adjusted person who I don't think would ever hurt anyone again.
For the first guy: would I want him teaching children? Not on your life (or theirs). He's got a Manslaughter conviction on his record, which isn't that "severe".
For the second guy: would I want him teaching children? Sure. He really is a well-adjusted person, and I doubt he would ever hurt anyone again. And he's got the more severe conviction. HOwever, the family and friends of the person who died by his hands may think otherwise.
So my answer would be Each Person needs to be judged on a person by person basis. You can't make sweeping decisions unless you know the person involved. Yes, that's not a real answer, but it's the best I can give.
Perhaps my perspective is odd
Date: 2004-09-30 10:11 am (UTC)Did he disclose the felony when he applied/was hired?
If he didn't and they asked (which nearly every employer does), then they had every right to dismiss him for false application. (The application that he signed likely said so.)
If he did, the university accepted him with the mark on his record and their dismissing him is very problematic (imnsho).
Please note that I hold that every employer has a right to chose to hire or not hire convicted felons, however choosing to fire an employee for a disclosed past felony is reneging on a deal.
Here is hoping that he did disclose the felony and that another university hires him.
Re: Perhaps my perspective is odd
Date: 2004-09-30 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 08:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 07:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 07:09 am (UTC)I've straed my graduate school career (going for a Master's in Criminal Justice) with a class called Criminal Justice Policy. It's fun, and we've been discussing this very issue.
In general, the main objective of the American Politician is to keep getting elected. To do so, they need to pander to the voters. Voters get a mob mentality on what it means to deal with crime effectively. In simple terms, it means throw the offenders in jail. That is easy to understand, it's quick, it feeds our need for instant gratification.
What really needs to happen is social change, and ways to a) prevent crime and b) treat the root causes for why people commit certain kinds of crime in the first place. There is a prtoblem with these: they cost money, and people don't want to spend money on soft and fuzzy social porgrams that might not work, and even if they do, its going to take years before we find out if they do, and they don't want to spend money on people who have broken the law.
As far as the "purpose of our Criminal Justice System" there are four things that crimnal sanctions are supposed to do. Incapacitate (while you're in prison, you cqan't commit more crime against the greater society), deterrence (people will see, "oh, he went to prison for being bad. Maybe I shouldn't be bad.") punishment (pretty self-explanitory), and rehabilitation (also self explanitory). However, detereence rarely works, and rehab sometimes works... but it's argued that they people who benifit from rehab are people who are less likely to reoffend anyway. Rehab is expensive as well, and the voters have indicated that they would rather spend money or more pirsons that making prison someplace where criminals get "coddled."
Under normal circumstances I am a soft and fuzzy, ankle biting, tree hugging, knee jerk liberal. I have less soft and fuzzy-ness with violent crimes. Triple homicide? He made a choice. He has to live with it.