Check out my latest column in the Sun Sentinel:
"Cutbacks in space, military spending could undermine U.S. as a superpower"
01.16.12
by Steven H. Kurlander
#1 - The French writer Francois De La Rochefoucauld once wrote: "We pardon to the extent that we love."
Mississippi's Haley Barbour was "Governor Amore" last week when two days before leaving the Governor's mansion when he pardoned or reduced the sentences of over 220 convicted criminals, including 41 that had been convicted of violent crimes and four men sentenced to life for committing murder.
Most of the pardons, actually 190 of them, were awarded by Barbour to criminals already released from custody.
There was immediate outrage both within Mississippi and around the nation over the sheer number of pardons with many arguing that the Barbour's actions were an abuse of discretion in view of the traditional granting of pardons.
A Mississippi court quickly stayed the release of 21 of these inmates and required five former Governor's Mansion trustees, who were pardoned and released, to be rounded up and returned to prison.
Barbour, who until the pardon debacle was a very popular Governor in Mississippi, is also the former chairman of the Republican Governor's Association and was once considered as a formidable candidate for President in 2012 until he withdrew his name out of consideration in April.
Under attack, Barbour defended the pardons on Friday by stating:
"Christianity teaches us forgiveness and second chances...I believe in second chances, and I try hard to be forgiving. The historic power of gubernatorial clemency by the Governor to pardon felons is rooted in the Christian idea of giving second chances."
Mississippi's Attorney General is now looking to have 167 of 181 revoked because the Governor failed to meet state constitutional requirements requiring the publication of notices of the pardons.
The idea of a pardon is reexamines an inmate's sentence in terms of its severity in relation to the crime committed and apply a measure of amnesty (and even fairness) to release inmates from prison early. It also paves the way for felons who have already served their time to repair their status as criminals to allow them to regain employment, voting rights and other societal benefits most of us take for granted.
I practiced criminal law for about 15 years and would estimate about 90% of the criminal defendants that I represented were not criminals who were truly and innately evil, violent, anti-social individuals or those suffering from cognitive or volitional criminal insanity. Most of the people I represented were either really dumb in the sense of lacking any good judgment in crossing the line of criminality, had substance or non criminal mental health issues that spontaneously overpowered their sense of right and wrong, or were individuals just in the wrong place at the wrong time-or all of the above.
Based on that personal experience as well as the fact that our country leads the world in locking up that 90% (743 per 100,000 in 2009) instead of utilizing other alternative methods of dealing with their "criminal" activity (which states are now finding a little too expensive), the traditional thinking that pardons should be issued on a limited basis is outdated and wrong.
The criticism being leveled at Barbour, particularly from Democratic politicians in Mississippi, is based on politics and raw emotion and bias against the concept of rehabilitation and forgiving criminals for their acts.
The criminals involved, most of whom had done their time already, were not "true" hard core criminals who posed a continued danger to society and were more than eligible under present standards for a pardon by Barbour. It was the number of pardons, which may be highlighted the fact that too many inmates are convicted as felons and incarcerated in Mississippi for too long, that upset people more than letting a few murders out of prison.
I don't see anything wrong with Barbour's actions other than he should have followed the letter of the law in the publication department so that the victim's and/or their families were properly notified of the inmate's pardons. Their rights to lend their opinions about the pardons should have been honored and in fact would justify their rescission if in fact the law was not correctly followed.
Based on the expense of incarceration and the undue severity of our sentencing guidelines, hopefully Barbour's actions will stimulate a debate about a need to revise our criminal justice system in terms of incarceration and sentencing and how we continue to punish felons once they have done their time and try to reintegrate back into society.
#2 - Talking about how a meaningful discussion of the review of the criminal justice system is long overdue:
Last October I wrote an article about how the term "rape" needed to be revised after 80 years by the Federal government to allow for accurate reporting of sex crimes.
There is a big gap between what the FBI has been reporting and what other measures of rape have indicated. A study called the National Crime Victimization Survey reported in 2010 188,380 sexual assaults nationwide, up from 125,920 in 2009, while the FBI reported 84,767 rapes, down from 89,241 in 2009.
Too many sexual crimes have been undercounted for years because the definition did not include male victims. Rape was defined by the FBI as the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
Last week, the definition's change was changed by the Justice Department to include any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim's consent.
Attorney General Eric Holder called the change "long overdue'' and added that the new provision will result in "more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes." Comment |
#3 - Speaking of traditionally unreported statistics:
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week reported for the first time that binge drinking, which always involved reporting centered on young imbibers, is also a major problem for US senior citizens.
According to the CDC, we are a country that not only incarcerates a lot of our citizens, but also whose population drinks too much.. Overall, 17% of Americans were reported to be binge drinkers.
The CDC conducted a phone survey of about a half a million Americans last year and estimated that over 38 million Americans binge drink, which is defined as five drinks for a man and four for a woman in a short time span (by the way, is that definition sexist? Why would a woman drink less than a man in the same period of time?).
The study showed that while seniors generally drink less than other age groups, they binge the most-5.5 times per month on average, well above the 4 times a month by those under age 45.
Abuse of alcohol is particularly dangerous to seniors who are more likely to take pain killers, sleep aids and anti-depressants and may contribute to common senior medical conditions such as osteoporosis and high blood pressure.
How come these statistics about seniors were never highlighted before?
Living in South Florida, where senior driving is just awful (and totally unreported and controlled due to political considerations), I wonder if such binge drinking contributes to their terrible command of the road.
Bet that an additional study of the relation to senior abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs in relation to auto accidents involving them is not coming anytime soon--or any measure designed to study taking incapacitated seniors off our highways.
It only took 80 years for the FBI to revise the definition of rape, think about how long it will take to start taking away licenses from dangerous, but politically powerful, senior drivers that are too old or impaired to operate a motor vehicle in the Sunshine State? Comment |
Have a great week-and make a point to forgive someone too in the next few days. Kurly.
