On April 12, 2018 in Shreveport, Louisiana, Johnathan Robinson intentionally shot and killed his ex-girlfriend Rannita Williams during a live stream on the Facebook social media platform. After the shooting, he engaged the police in an hour-long stand-off wherein he shot at officers, wounding one. After his arraignment, a judge set Robinson's bail at $2.5 million. Previously, Robinson had a felony conviction in 2015 stemming from a domestic assault for which he received probation and a suspended sentence.
The following is what people are NOT going to talk about.
Robinson received a slap on the wrist for a vicious, aggravated assault. Rather than simply saying the penal code is broken, slaps on the wrist are usually attributed to wealth, privilege, maleness or whiteness. However, Robinson is not wealthy, privileged or white and if it's one thing they love to do in Louisiana, it's put black men in prison. Therefore, it boggles the mind why he wasn't charged with domestic abuse aggravated assault which carries a max 5 year term and MIGHT have saved Rannita Williams life.
As not only a felon but also a domestic abuser, Johnathan Robinson was doubly prohibited from buying or owning a firearm. How did he get one? He discharged his firearm 6 times in Rannita Williams direction and prevented help from reaching her for over an hour. No background check, no magazine restriction, no gun-specific ban--no firearm regulation of any kind--would have saved her life from this attack. The only thing that might have given her a chance would have been shooting him before he shot her.
The police forgot the Golden Rule of policing in America: black suspects are NOT to be apprehended alive. Especially not black men that shoot at and/or wound officers. Given the disproportionate number of black males in prison, they forget this rule quite frequently, so it might just be an unremarkable fact.
After Robinson intentionally murdered a mother live for the entire world to see, engaged in a stand-off with cops, shot a cop and became combative in jail...a judge determined he should be granted bail. I doubt Robinson has the bond price and I doubt anyone is going to provide it for him, so he'll sit in jail where a danger to the community belongs. However, you might recall a certain shooting, by a man of a certain race, using a weapon of a certain kind, against people of a certain other race in Tennessee that has held American attention for the last two weeks. That alleged mass murderer was granted bail also, but the difference is there was community uproar and his bond was revoked--as it should have been. As is typical, when their isn't much to gain politically, those crying foul the loudest disappear.
Neither Donald Trump nor the NRA has spoken out against this act of senseless violence...and neither has Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Oprah Winfrey, Rihanna, Beyonce, Corey Booker or Angela Davis. And, nobody with a voice will. Nobody cares about the day-in-and-day-out violence that is a byproduct of social and moral decay. Nobody cares about suffering that isn't polarizing, and can't be monetized or politicized. Rannita will get no hashtag and no law, because, frankly, nobody cares about the Rannitas of this world. Nobody will say her name.
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2018
Saturday, July 13, 2013
People's Exhibit Zero
File Under: Clear and Present Danger
Were that a sanctioned fight, a referee would have called it after the first punch. Age disparity meant nothing. The younger man proved himself more than a threat.
David vs. Goliath
Size disparity does not mean you are invulnerable, nor that you are able to use size to your advantage. A smaller fighter is more than capable of causing a problem for a larger opponent. Back-pedaling in the darkness and the rain, it is perfectly possible to lose your footing and your attacker is upon you in an instant, raining down blows.
Old vs Young
Wrestling is a young man's game, not an old man's game, right? Wrong. Someone you wouldn't expect to get the better of you can, if for no other reason that a mistake on your part and good fortune on their's.
Tony Doesn't Want Any Part of Mom
It looks like Tony had reason to fear he was in danger of serious bodily harm if he pressed this issue with this young man's mother.
No, This Is Over
NOTE: Sarcasm warning, proceed with caution. When I began watching this I knew the burly, aggressive guy was going to win. I bet you did too.
"Insignificant" External Injuries
The last two videos were included purely for their comedic value. But this next one is serious. Deadly serious.
Notice the man conversing, not bleeding at all, get up, and walk away, only to die moments later from apparently very significant injuries. Still not convinced? Well, if you still believe a man has nothing to fear from a boy attacking him, I leave you with this:
That was the family of 46 year-old Ricardo Portillo. He is dead now. The 17 year-old "boy" who killed him has been charged with homicide. The "child" literally punched him to death. The family sobbing in this video could have just as easily been George Zimmerman's. I think George Zimmerman has a low-opinion of the kind of people he thought Trayvon Martin was. He is book smart, but not very intelligent. He is an over-zealous failure, who has to rely on the good graces of others to bail him out of problem situations. Though I would not have made the same choices he made, the choices he made were not illegal, reckless, malicious, or negligible. I don't have any reason to dislike him beyond the fact that Trayvon Martin is no longer alive, able to learn and grow into a good man. The investigation into his death was sluggish and bungled, yes, but ultimately Trayvon Martin is dead and gone and his death was no crime. There is nothing we can do for Trayvon Martin or his family at this point. But we can end the cycle of tragedy and bitterness. We can find George Zimmerman not guilty.
As the world waits for the jury to determine George Zimmerman's fate in the death of Trayvon Martin, we must realize what is actually on trial here. With the mainstream media and the Department of Justice firmly entrenched in the camp of the prosecution, we know this is more than just a simple murder trial: this is a partisan battle with far-reaching political implications. What we are really waiting on is not just the exoneration or condemnation of George Zimmerman, but also the decision that will play heavily into the fate of Stand Your Ground as a doctrine and the Second Amendment itself.
At this point, I do not believe any reasonable person would, no matter what George Zimmerman did or said, argue against the facts of the case:
- Trayvon Martin struck George Zimmerman first;
- A scuffle ensued in which George Zimmerman fell to the ground; and
- Shortly before being shot, Trayvon Martin was leaning over or straddling George Zimmerman.
We do not, with sufficient certainty, know anymore than that, but more than that is not necessary to know. The jury must only decide did George Zimmerman have good reason to fear that he could be seriously injured or killed if he did not use force against his attacker.
Critics of George Zimmerman's defense site the age/weight disparity, the severity of Zimmerman's wounds, and the fact that Zimmerman was armed while Martin was not as evidence against Zimmerman plausibly believing he could be seriously harmed or killed. If you can get beyond the arrogance of trying to assume what someone actually felt in a crisis situation, and examine the situation objectively you see those arguments make no sense. Age, weight, gender, the intensity of a fight, even being armed are not reliable predictors of how severe injury or likely death could be in a real world close combat scenario. I turn to the internet to prove the point.
Man vs. Child
Were that a sanctioned fight, a referee would have called it after the first punch. Age disparity meant nothing. The younger man proved himself more than a threat.
David vs. Goliath
Size disparity does not mean you are invulnerable, nor that you are able to use size to your advantage. A smaller fighter is more than capable of causing a problem for a larger opponent. Back-pedaling in the darkness and the rain, it is perfectly possible to lose your footing and your attacker is upon you in an instant, raining down blows.
Old vs Young
Wrestling is a young man's game, not an old man's game, right? Wrong. Someone you wouldn't expect to get the better of you can, if for no other reason that a mistake on your part and good fortune on their's.
Tony Doesn't Want Any Part of Mom
It looks like Tony had reason to fear he was in danger of serious bodily harm if he pressed this issue with this young man's mother.
No, This Is Over
NOTE: Sarcasm warning, proceed with caution. When I began watching this I knew the burly, aggressive guy was going to win. I bet you did too.
"Insignificant" External Injuries
The last two videos were included purely for their comedic value. But this next one is serious. Deadly serious.
Notice the man conversing, not bleeding at all, get up, and walk away, only to die moments later from apparently very significant injuries. Still not convinced? Well, if you still believe a man has nothing to fear from a boy attacking him, I leave you with this:
That was the family of 46 year-old Ricardo Portillo. He is dead now. The 17 year-old "boy" who killed him has been charged with homicide. The "child" literally punched him to death. The family sobbing in this video could have just as easily been George Zimmerman's. I think George Zimmerman has a low-opinion of the kind of people he thought Trayvon Martin was. He is book smart, but not very intelligent. He is an over-zealous failure, who has to rely on the good graces of others to bail him out of problem situations. Though I would not have made the same choices he made, the choices he made were not illegal, reckless, malicious, or negligible. I don't have any reason to dislike him beyond the fact that Trayvon Martin is no longer alive, able to learn and grow into a good man. The investigation into his death was sluggish and bungled, yes, but ultimately Trayvon Martin is dead and gone and his death was no crime. There is nothing we can do for Trayvon Martin or his family at this point. But we can end the cycle of tragedy and bitterness. We can find George Zimmerman not guilty.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Justice for Robert Ethan Saylor
File Under: For Great Justice
On January 12, Robert Ethan Saylor, 26, was asphyxiated and subsequently died after being handcuffed and placed face-down on the ground by 3 off-duty officers when he refused to leave a movie theater in Frederick, MD. I've been following this story for several days WAITING to see what the authorities would do. However seeing the emotion-filled misinformation put forth on the internet, I felt it important to point out several things. Subsequent to the coroner's findings of homicide (as part of the police investigation the findings of which will be forwarded to the state attorney's office for formal charges) the 3 officers involved have been suspended. [1] For your own benefit know this: by law police officers are police 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. So long as they've identified themselves to you as police and are acting as police, they have the authority to enforce the law -- including issuing citations or detaining/arresting people. They have this authority even if they are not on the clock and not in uniform. The officers in this case were in uniform, had identified themselves as police, and since Mr. Saylor was breaking the law, the police were not acting in a personal capacity or on behalf of their secondary employer. The fact that they were moonlighting as security guards is immaterial.
The state's attorney would probably have a hard time proving excessive force, unless witness testimony says something to the effect that the victim was slammed or thrown to the ground, and forcefully held there -- or something worse. It does not seem as if the victim was roughed up. Subduing, handcuffing, and allowing a suspect to rest in the position that initiated Saylor's respiratory distress is common practice. Saylor was probably hyperventilating from emotional and physical excitement, and he asphyxiated when his lungs were not able to get air due to his position. The police did not act with malice or intent to harm Saylor, but there direct actions preceded the event that caused his death. That leaves the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being leveled against them, and the state would have to prove their actions were reckless, negligent, and/or criminal. Reckless seeming to us maybe, but I do not believe it rises to the legal definition of the word, nor were their actions criminal as they were acting under the color of law. That leaves negligent, which possibly could be proven if A ) a reasonable person could foresee their actions resulting in Saylor death or B ) they did not follow established procedure in detaining Saylor or C ) they did not intervene once Saylor began to go into respiratory distress.
I do not see convictions for the officers resulting from this. At this point I do know if that is the just thing or not. Suspensions (obviously) possibly without pay, and other disciplinary action probably will occur. A civil action is unlikely also because that would require the police to be acting outside of their authority by either acting as private citizens or exerting excessive force (voiding police protection). At most Regal Cinemas and the Police will come forward with very public apologies and large voluntary compensation to the Saylor family. If one thing absolutely must come out of this, police agencies nationwide must conduct a review of arrest/detention procedures and comprehensive, updated sensitivity training with a focus on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. It is time for people to stop dying after the police get involved.
Criminally Negligent Homicide
We have to allow the authorities to continue their investigation into the facts of the case, though I wish the authorities investigating this young man's death were not the same police that employ the 3 suspended officers. I am deeply saddened that Robert Saylor is no longer with us, and gone at such a young age. Until the all the facts are known, and maybe not even then, it is not fair to demonize Regal Cinemas as a whole or the employee as an individual. The man's death is tragic enough as it is without inventing reasons and motivations to make it even more so. I have to realize in my current condition, the same thing could have happened to me.
Sources:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/robert-saylor-homicide_n_2727369.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
 |
| What could have saved the life of this young man who apparently just loves books and good movies? |
On January 12, Robert Ethan Saylor, 26, was asphyxiated and subsequently died after being handcuffed and placed face-down on the ground by 3 off-duty officers when he refused to leave a movie theater in Frederick, MD. I've been following this story for several days WAITING to see what the authorities would do. However seeing the emotion-filled misinformation put forth on the internet, I felt it important to point out several things. Subsequent to the coroner's findings of homicide (as part of the police investigation the findings of which will be forwarded to the state attorney's office for formal charges) the 3 officers involved have been suspended. [1] For your own benefit know this: by law police officers are police 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. So long as they've identified themselves to you as police and are acting as police, they have the authority to enforce the law -- including issuing citations or detaining/arresting people. They have this authority even if they are not on the clock and not in uniform. The officers in this case were in uniform, had identified themselves as police, and since Mr. Saylor was breaking the law, the police were not acting in a personal capacity or on behalf of their secondary employer. The fact that they were moonlighting as security guards is immaterial.
The state's attorney would probably have a hard time proving excessive force, unless witness testimony says something to the effect that the victim was slammed or thrown to the ground, and forcefully held there -- or something worse. It does not seem as if the victim was roughed up. Subduing, handcuffing, and allowing a suspect to rest in the position that initiated Saylor's respiratory distress is common practice. Saylor was probably hyperventilating from emotional and physical excitement, and he asphyxiated when his lungs were not able to get air due to his position. The police did not act with malice or intent to harm Saylor, but there direct actions preceded the event that caused his death. That leaves the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being leveled against them, and the state would have to prove their actions were reckless, negligent, and/or criminal. Reckless seeming to us maybe, but I do not believe it rises to the legal definition of the word, nor were their actions criminal as they were acting under the color of law. That leaves negligent, which possibly could be proven if A ) a reasonable person could foresee their actions resulting in Saylor death or B ) they did not follow established procedure in detaining Saylor or C ) they did not intervene once Saylor began to go into respiratory distress.
 |
| Determining the difference between justified and excessive use of force is not always black and white. |
I do not see convictions for the officers resulting from this. At this point I do know if that is the just thing or not. Suspensions (obviously) possibly without pay, and other disciplinary action probably will occur. A civil action is unlikely also because that would require the police to be acting outside of their authority by either acting as private citizens or exerting excessive force (voiding police protection). At most Regal Cinemas and the Police will come forward with very public apologies and large voluntary compensation to the Saylor family. If one thing absolutely must come out of this, police agencies nationwide must conduct a review of arrest/detention procedures and comprehensive, updated sensitivity training with a focus on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. It is time for people to stop dying after the police get involved.
Excessive Use of Force
We have to allow the authorities to continue their investigation into the facts of the case, though I wish the authorities investigating this young man's death were not the same police that employ the 3 suspended officers. I am deeply saddened that Robert Saylor is no longer with us, and gone at such a young age. Until the all the facts are known, and maybe not even then, it is not fair to demonize Regal Cinemas as a whole or the employee as an individual. The man's death is tragic enough as it is without inventing reasons and motivations to make it even more so. I have to realize in my current condition, the same thing could have happened to me.
Sources:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/robert-saylor-homicide_n_2727369.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
Sending A Message
File Under: For Great Justice
On February 20, 2011, apparently while texting and driving his vehicle, then 17 year-old Aaron Deveau lost concentration, came across the center line, and plowed headlong into the truck driven by Donald Bowley, causing Bowley's death from injuries suffered in the wreck 18 days later. A little over a year later Deveau would be the first person to be convicted of a vehicular homicide under the new breed of anti-texting laws. This might seem like a simple issue on the surface, but in reality it is rather complex and illustrates the problems that hamper the American criminal justice system. Many things were done right in the sentencing of Aaron Deveau: the judge issued an individual sentence, the defendants age was considered, the maximum penalty was levied against a clearly culpable defendant, the judged utilized judicial discretion in extending mercy, and the court used the opportunity to send a clear message to the community -- both locally and nationally. These are all positives to the credit of the court in this case. However, the system fails in the much larger grand scheme of things.
The Crime Itself.
One man is dead and another man will spend 1 year in prison for his death. Is this punishment proportional to the crime? Looking at the Massachusetts state code, and reasoning that if the maximum sentence the defendant was facing was 2 1/2 years, then I assume he was facing the charge of misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide. The nature of the crime and the victims death could even qualify for a charge of second degree murder, depending on how you interpret Massachusetts common law. If the District Attorney sincerely wanted to make Aaron Deveau an example, was misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide the best charge for his offense?
Interpretation of the Massachusetts Penal Code [2]
Second Degree Murder - maximum sentence: life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after 15 years
The Sentencing
Aaron Deveau maintains (now) that he made a mistake, one for which he is sorry. I will avoid elaborating on, but cannot avoid implying that the charge and sentencing reflects a level of preference that other members of the community would not have received in the same circumstances. Not wanting to make a felon out of the young Deveau, I can only surmise that the District Attorney (in giving him the lightest charge possible) and the Judge (for only sentencing him to 1 year in prison) felt that his actions were just not meritorious enough of a more severe penalty. Or maybe they felt that other citizens would be shocked back into reality and deterred from texting-while-driving due to Deveau's stiff 1-year prison term. The same 1 year Martha Stewart received for obstruction of justice over $50,000 or the same 1 year Lil Kim received for perjury. That is equitable, right? The public will surely will be shaken by this landmark decision, will they not? I suppose this is a stiff sentence when you consider the slap on the wrist actress Rebecca Gayheart received for pleading no contest to vehicular homicide in the death of 9 year-old Jorge Cruz; she was sentenced to "three years probation, a one-year suspension of her license, a $2,800 fine, and 750 hours of community service." [3] We had a problem in this country: people using mobile devices while driving or otherwise simply driving distracted. This was already patently illegal by existing state law everywhere. However, to correct this problem what did we do? We added more statutes to the bloated, confusing penal code despite the fact that people already were not deterred by the threat of consequences. Now we have yet another law which ( in some cases) is hard to enforce and has very arbitrary, impotent sentencing guidelines.
The Defendant
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. That point is irrelevant though, as Aaron Deveau knew the law. No new statute has probably received as much notoriety as those adopted or being adopted in states nationwide specifically prohibiting the practice of using a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle. Even before such laws were added to the penal code, anyone who passed a written examination to become a licensed driver knew that at all times a driver should keep his or her eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. Aaron Deveau did not care about the law or how breaking that law could harm others. Is that an offense that one can excuse to this degree on grounds of youth, especially when someone died from his malice? Aaron Deveau:
On February 20, 2011, apparently while texting and driving his vehicle, then 17 year-old Aaron Deveau lost concentration, came across the center line, and plowed headlong into the truck driven by Donald Bowley, causing Bowley's death from injuries suffered in the wreck 18 days later. A little over a year later Deveau would be the first person to be convicted of a vehicular homicide under the new breed of anti-texting laws. This might seem like a simple issue on the surface, but in reality it is rather complex and illustrates the problems that hamper the American criminal justice system. Many things were done right in the sentencing of Aaron Deveau: the judge issued an individual sentence, the defendants age was considered, the maximum penalty was levied against a clearly culpable defendant, the judged utilized judicial discretion in extending mercy, and the court used the opportunity to send a clear message to the community -- both locally and nationally. These are all positives to the credit of the court in this case. However, the system fails in the much larger grand scheme of things.
The Crime Itself.
One man is dead and another man will spend 1 year in prison for his death. Is this punishment proportional to the crime? Looking at the Massachusetts state code, and reasoning that if the maximum sentence the defendant was facing was 2 1/2 years, then I assume he was facing the charge of misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide. The nature of the crime and the victims death could even qualify for a charge of second degree murder, depending on how you interpret Massachusetts common law. If the District Attorney sincerely wanted to make Aaron Deveau an example, was misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide the best charge for his offense?
Interpretation of the Massachusetts Penal Code [2]
Second Degree Murder - maximum sentence: life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after 15 years
- "The unlawful killing of a human being accomplished [...] with malice aforethought..."
- Malice Aforethought: "...an intent to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. The malice element does not require an intent to cause a death."
- "...an unintentional killing occasioned by an act which constitutes such a disregard of the probable harmful consequences to another as to be wanton or reckless..."
- "...wanton or reckless conduct includes both affirmative acts and failures to act where a duty to act exists. Such acts or omissions must embody a disregard for the probable harmful consequences to another. The conduct must involve a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. The law requires that the defendant have knowledge of the circumstances and the intent to do the act that caused the death, and also requires that the circumstances presented a danger of serious harm such that a reasonable man would have recognized the nature and degree of danger."
- "Operation of a motor vehicle upon a public way or place to which the public has a right of access or access as invitees or licensees [...] recklessly or negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, and thereby causing the death of another person."
The Sentencing
Aaron Deveau maintains (now) that he made a mistake, one for which he is sorry. I will avoid elaborating on, but cannot avoid implying that the charge and sentencing reflects a level of preference that other members of the community would not have received in the same circumstances. Not wanting to make a felon out of the young Deveau, I can only surmise that the District Attorney (in giving him the lightest charge possible) and the Judge (for only sentencing him to 1 year in prison) felt that his actions were just not meritorious enough of a more severe penalty. Or maybe they felt that other citizens would be shocked back into reality and deterred from texting-while-driving due to Deveau's stiff 1-year prison term. The same 1 year Martha Stewart received for obstruction of justice over $50,000 or the same 1 year Lil Kim received for perjury. That is equitable, right? The public will surely will be shaken by this landmark decision, will they not? I suppose this is a stiff sentence when you consider the slap on the wrist actress Rebecca Gayheart received for pleading no contest to vehicular homicide in the death of 9 year-old Jorge Cruz; she was sentenced to "three years probation, a one-year suspension of her license, a $2,800 fine, and 750 hours of community service." [3] We had a problem in this country: people using mobile devices while driving or otherwise simply driving distracted. This was already patently illegal by existing state law everywhere. However, to correct this problem what did we do? We added more statutes to the bloated, confusing penal code despite the fact that people already were not deterred by the threat of consequences. Now we have yet another law which ( in some cases) is hard to enforce and has very arbitrary, impotent sentencing guidelines.
The Defendant
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. That point is irrelevant though, as Aaron Deveau knew the law. No new statute has probably received as much notoriety as those adopted or being adopted in states nationwide specifically prohibiting the practice of using a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle. Even before such laws were added to the penal code, anyone who passed a written examination to become a licensed driver knew that at all times a driver should keep his or her eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. Aaron Deveau did not care about the law or how breaking that law could harm others. Is that an offense that one can excuse to this degree on grounds of youth, especially when someone died from his malice? Aaron Deveau:
- Knew his actions were a crime;
- Knew car accidents are one of the leading causes of death by injury (only recently overtaken at #1 by suicides);
- Knew his criminal actions are highly contributory to car accidents as any reasonable person would know;
- Had the presence of mind required to be deemed culpable;
- Committed his actions willfully;
- Covered up the crime, and
- Lied to authorities.
Justice Served?
What picture does this paint of Aaron Deveau? An evil monster? By no means, but the criminal justice system is not about witch hunts and demonizing people who genuinely made colossal mistakes. It is about ensuring Justice. Aaron Deveau was not a victim of a bizarre natural or physiological event. He did not blackout or swerve to avoid a wreck. Aaron Deveau may not have intended to kill Donald Bowley, yet through willful, wanton, and reckless action the victim is nevertheless just as dead -- and that makes Aaron Deveau a murderer. Aaron Deveau did not need to spend the entirety of his life behind bars, but maybe he needed to consider it -- just have that hang over his head a while, to give up a larger piece of what he took from Donald Bowley. All the system accomplished was to create another future ex-convict. The District Attorney and the Judge did not: appropriately punish Aaron Deveau, they did not create an example of him, they did not incapacitate him long enough, he likely will not rehabilitate, and future sentencing will show that this was not equitable. One year was a slap in the face of Justice. One year in prison could have been more than sufficient for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the decedent's girlfriend, Luz Roman, for her own injuries. But it does not even begin to atone for the loss of her boyfriend, especially considering the man would still be alive if all Aaron Deveau had done was put down his damn phone and paid attention to the road.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
And Justice For All
File Under: What Defines Us
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that when sentencing juvenile offenders, the court must consider the offenders age in the determination of the sentence and parole stipulations - not to do so, would be Unconstitutional. Many state courts and legislators are now faced with the question of what to do with the hundreds of individuals in their inmate population convicted as juveniles to sentences of life without possibility of parole, some for their role in very heinous crimes. The Supreme Court ruling and rulings in favor of applying it retroactively no doubt raises the question: is this Justice? To answer that question, first we must analyze what is the nature of Justice.
The Pillars of Justice
Justice, particularly criminal justice, has several components or characteristics which define the goals that Justice is to accomplish. Application of reason, ethics, and law in the resolution of deviations from the social contract can be defined by six ingredients, which when combined in the right proportion come together to form a recipe of true Justice. These six ingredients, or Pillars of Justice are as follows in order of ascending importance:
Retribution: Punishing offenders for their offenses
This concept is simple, and I am sure it is one anyone can understand, which is why so often it is the first method of thought correction applied to very small children. When you commit an offense (violate the terms of your social contract) you are assessed and must suffer a penalty that is (ideally) sufficiently proportionate to the offense. Retribution is all about the individual and it has 3 primary goals. First is to make the offender aware the offense is wrong according to societal standards. Secondly, punishments create a loss for the wrongdoer thus creating pain and suffering for him or her ideally bringing them into the same emotional sphere as the victim of the wrongful act. Finally, punishments provide a negative association between that behavior and painful consequences so that when the offender contemplates that behavior again he or she is psychologically less likely to repeat it again. Looking at the use of retribution as a correctional tool on both 3 and 30 year-olds you can easily see why punishment is lowest of the Pillars. While it is certainly effective, even to the point of 100% effective, in accomplishing its first 2 goals, punishment alone is very hit or miss in effectively accomplishing its last and most important goal - at times being disastrously counterproductive.
Deterrence: Lowering likelihood of potential future offenses
What is the reason behind the rhetoric of Justice being swift, hard, and exact? One reason is to make an example of the offender, to show society what happens to a person who violates his or her social contract. This is only slightly more effective than direct punishment on the individual because people as a group are more easily swayed, whether for the good or the bad. To illustrate, just think back to when you were a child and someone caught a beating for being bad; whether you believed you were at risk of receiving a beating yourself, everyone who witnessed the beating observed a cautionary period of silence and angelic behavior, avoiding coming into the line of sight of any adult. Sometimes in society the dividing line between good and bad is just the reticence to risk exposure and undergo punishment. While not an ideal way of operating a civil society, as people have already agreed not to commit wrongdoing, it keeps a certain amount of bad things from happening when civilized people stray from the path. Therefore, Justice has to be sufficiently imposing without losing its fairness or love. That is a tough bill to fulfill. Enough people will not be deterred in totality especially if the rewards outweigh the risks (in the case of the amoral), or the risks never enter into the equation before they commit the offense (in the case of the insane or immature). The system cannot make retribution pervasive or severe enough to be effective without derailing Justice. Society could impose mandatory life and death sentences for every offense, yet criminality would persist and likely the grave nature of crimes by willful offenders would likely index itself to the monumental risk now inherent in wrongdoing. Deterrence has a role but is still far from the bedrock principle of Justice.
Censure: Incapacitating singularly dangerous or unrepentant persons
Here we begin to get closer to the heart of the social contract, for which Justice ideally ensures not only everyone's compliance but surety in so complying. A society without Justice is the equivalent of depositing your money in a bank with no physical or electronic security where none of the deposits were insured. What incentive would you have to do such a thing, and what would stop an unscrupulous person from taking all your money? Living in society we deposit some of our liberty and resources into the society in return for all the benefits of being a member of that society. Justice is the security and insurance protecting that investment. As a member of society when something goes wrong, a system is in place to deal with the wrong. When censure is factored into the equation, Justice becomes like a firewall or anti-virus on your computer, keeping members of society safely over here and the former members of society who have broken their contracts that are now a risk to a safe, secure society isolated from them. In a civilized society declaration of war or the execution of Justice are the only two legal and moral means the system can employ to restrict a person's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Unsurprisingly, censure is one of the most easily abused and unbalanced aspects of Justice. Stripping a citizen of their rights, freedoms, and remaining liberties, making them a sub-citizen or non-citizen is a condition that should be reserved for only the most singularly significant threats to the safety and security of society as demonstrated by either the immense nature of their wrongdoing or their unrepentant history of continual wrongdoing. Far too often (in the use of censure) Justice careens off the track and crashes into something more closely resembling injustice, vindictiveness, or tyranny.
Rehabilitation: Reforming, reeducating, and reintegrating offenders into society
Rehabilitation ascribes to the philosophy that no one should be automatically seen as a lost cause, that all members of society are important to society even the ones that have been temporarily removed due to their wrongdoing, and that the primary role of Justice is to continually shape society into a more perfect version of itself. As such rehabilitation is somewhat at odds with the first 3 Pillars of Justice. Why? Because if you're giving someone the beating of their life, if you're beating that person bad enough to discourage anyone from doing what he or she did to incur your wrath, if you're beating them so badly his or her descendants to the third generation have traumatic memories of the beating, then you are probably not going to ever win that person back over to your side. In fact you should probably look over your shoulder and sleep with one eye open until that person converts to Buddhism, and even then you probably should remain vigilant. According to the high-minded individuals who came up with the idea of the penitentiary, the penitents would sit and contemplate how bad their actions were and how good they should have been, when they weren't being forced to do menial tasks or labor. However, when you factor in mandatory punishments, harsh sentences, harsher prison conditions, lack of societal care, lack of hope, and dim prospects of success upon possible reintegration it becomes more likely the institutionalized mind spends more of its time contemplating bitterness, survival, and additional acts of wrongdoing. This inverse reaction to a skewed application of Justice in tandem with societal factors external to the criminal justice system, leads to the levels of recidivism (repeat criminality) that plagues society and leads some to believe that rehabilitation is a lost cause. Recidivism, however, should not be seen as an indictment against rehabilitation itself.
The purpose of a society is to accomplish as a people what we cannot accomplish as an individual. As an individual one may or may not be able to forgive a wrongdoer for his or her actions, but if as a people a genuine opportunity presents itself to do just that, it must be seized. A productive, law-abiding citizen contributing to society and honoring his or her commitment to the social contract is preferable to the alternatives available if you removed rehabilitation from Justice. Not everyone can be or will be rehabilitated. Not all reform is genuine, not all reeducation sticks, and not all efforts at reintegration are successful. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon society in the pursuit of Justice not to overlook opportunities to interject compassion, mercy, and forgiveness where it appears to be deserving. This allows for healing both for the wronged and the wrongdoer. Nothing good can grow sans healing, for without it society can only fester, decay, and die from its wounds.
Equity: Securing fairness
Fairness is the very foundation of the social contract, and for that reason it is no wonder it is so important to the concept of Justice. Depending on how you reckon the issue, achieving equity might be the most difficult and least realized component in the pursuit of Justice. As humans we are not clairvoyant, we cannot read minds or hearts, humans are not perfect, and no situation involving humans is perfect either. Despite this, the rules by which we govern ourselves must strive to be and do all these things. Creating equitable outcomes for all involved (the wronged, society, and the wrongdoer) is the hallmark that Justice has been served. A Just solution may not be an amiable or satisfying solution but it must be fair; otherwise, the system fails in totality.
Restoration: compensating victims of an offense
This is the most important pillar because it deals with the most personal part of the social contract. Whenever one individual violates his or her agreement one or more persons are harmed and thus, suffer a loss - even if that victim is only the offender his or herself. In order to maintain universal buy-in to the social contract, anyone who suffers a loss should be compensated for that loss, and rightfully so. No one should be forced to be incomplete due to the actions of another when the system can make that aggrieved person whole again. This is a perfectly reasonable notion, yet execution of Justice becomes problematic when one is made incomplete by a loss of life. How does an offender or the system make another person whole again after that, how do you compensate someone for the death of another? That damage cannot be undone scientifically or in any practical method of merit when weighed against the value of a human life. The Justice system has tried to assess a monetary value to a persons' life earnings, to their societal impact, to their emotional/spiritual value, yet no amount of money can replace someone or bring them back from the dead. Eternal censure through permanent incarceration or death has also been promoted as a mode of recompense, yet again - neither bring back nor replace the dead.
At some point a line has to be drawn between vengeance, the righteous and loving pursuit of Justice, and vindictiveness, the unbalanced and relentless misapplication of will in an effort to assuage fear, anger, pain, or shame. When someone has been thoroughly punished, their incarceration deters no one, they no longer need to be censured, they have been rehabilitated, the statute that keeps them incarcerated is not equitable, and neither they nor society can restore the victim - why continue to punish the reformed individual? Is that not the essence of "cruel and unusual?" When a statute no longer or never serves any one of the Pillars of Justice, Justice is no longer being served. The system creates a new victim, a political prisoner or worse a casualty, and the offender now becomes the State. This is Injustice.
Unfortunately, Justice cannot correct the societal ills which corrupt its efforts to be exact and precise, and it cannot correct itself without external force applied by passionate citizens. Far too often what passes for Justice is not fair, has little effect on criminality, and does too little towards making the offender and the wrongdoer whole again. However, with decisions like the Supreme Court decision and the Michigan decision we as a people have been given an opportunity to examine what motivates us in the pursuit of Justice, redress long-standing policies that have only left us socially and morally impoverished, and begin to repair a long broken criminal justice system. In the years to come, after thoughtful deliberation and planning, thousands of individuals residing in America's correctional system who made horrible mistakes as children and were once condemned to never exist outside the walls of a prison but have since reformed will be reintegrated back into society and given a second chance on life. This will not be a satisfying or amiable solution to many, but when those reformed individuals are made whole again Justice will be served.
Comment, share, and be sure to follow me on Twitter: @RConradBane.
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that when sentencing juvenile offenders, the court must consider the offenders age in the determination of the sentence and parole stipulations - not to do so, would be Unconstitutional. Many state courts and legislators are now faced with the question of what to do with the hundreds of individuals in their inmate population convicted as juveniles to sentences of life without possibility of parole, some for their role in very heinous crimes. The Supreme Court ruling and rulings in favor of applying it retroactively no doubt raises the question: is this Justice? To answer that question, first we must analyze what is the nature of Justice.
The Pillars of Justice
Justice, particularly criminal justice, has several components or characteristics which define the goals that Justice is to accomplish. Application of reason, ethics, and law in the resolution of deviations from the social contract can be defined by six ingredients, which when combined in the right proportion come together to form a recipe of true Justice. These six ingredients, or Pillars of Justice are as follows in order of ascending importance:
Retribution: Punishing offenders for their offenses
This concept is simple, and I am sure it is one anyone can understand, which is why so often it is the first method of thought correction applied to very small children. When you commit an offense (violate the terms of your social contract) you are assessed and must suffer a penalty that is (ideally) sufficiently proportionate to the offense. Retribution is all about the individual and it has 3 primary goals. First is to make the offender aware the offense is wrong according to societal standards. Secondly, punishments create a loss for the wrongdoer thus creating pain and suffering for him or her ideally bringing them into the same emotional sphere as the victim of the wrongful act. Finally, punishments provide a negative association between that behavior and painful consequences so that when the offender contemplates that behavior again he or she is psychologically less likely to repeat it again. Looking at the use of retribution as a correctional tool on both 3 and 30 year-olds you can easily see why punishment is lowest of the Pillars. While it is certainly effective, even to the point of 100% effective, in accomplishing its first 2 goals, punishment alone is very hit or miss in effectively accomplishing its last and most important goal - at times being disastrously counterproductive.
Deterrence: Lowering likelihood of potential future offenses
What is the reason behind the rhetoric of Justice being swift, hard, and exact? One reason is to make an example of the offender, to show society what happens to a person who violates his or her social contract. This is only slightly more effective than direct punishment on the individual because people as a group are more easily swayed, whether for the good or the bad. To illustrate, just think back to when you were a child and someone caught a beating for being bad; whether you believed you were at risk of receiving a beating yourself, everyone who witnessed the beating observed a cautionary period of silence and angelic behavior, avoiding coming into the line of sight of any adult. Sometimes in society the dividing line between good and bad is just the reticence to risk exposure and undergo punishment. While not an ideal way of operating a civil society, as people have already agreed not to commit wrongdoing, it keeps a certain amount of bad things from happening when civilized people stray from the path. Therefore, Justice has to be sufficiently imposing without losing its fairness or love. That is a tough bill to fulfill. Enough people will not be deterred in totality especially if the rewards outweigh the risks (in the case of the amoral), or the risks never enter into the equation before they commit the offense (in the case of the insane or immature). The system cannot make retribution pervasive or severe enough to be effective without derailing Justice. Society could impose mandatory life and death sentences for every offense, yet criminality would persist and likely the grave nature of crimes by willful offenders would likely index itself to the monumental risk now inherent in wrongdoing. Deterrence has a role but is still far from the bedrock principle of Justice.
Censure: Incapacitating singularly dangerous or unrepentant persons
Here we begin to get closer to the heart of the social contract, for which Justice ideally ensures not only everyone's compliance but surety in so complying. A society without Justice is the equivalent of depositing your money in a bank with no physical or electronic security where none of the deposits were insured. What incentive would you have to do such a thing, and what would stop an unscrupulous person from taking all your money? Living in society we deposit some of our liberty and resources into the society in return for all the benefits of being a member of that society. Justice is the security and insurance protecting that investment. As a member of society when something goes wrong, a system is in place to deal with the wrong. When censure is factored into the equation, Justice becomes like a firewall or anti-virus on your computer, keeping members of society safely over here and the former members of society who have broken their contracts that are now a risk to a safe, secure society isolated from them. In a civilized society declaration of war or the execution of Justice are the only two legal and moral means the system can employ to restrict a person's right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Unsurprisingly, censure is one of the most easily abused and unbalanced aspects of Justice. Stripping a citizen of their rights, freedoms, and remaining liberties, making them a sub-citizen or non-citizen is a condition that should be reserved for only the most singularly significant threats to the safety and security of society as demonstrated by either the immense nature of their wrongdoing or their unrepentant history of continual wrongdoing. Far too often (in the use of censure) Justice careens off the track and crashes into something more closely resembling injustice, vindictiveness, or tyranny.
Rehabilitation: Reforming, reeducating, and reintegrating offenders into society
Rehabilitation ascribes to the philosophy that no one should be automatically seen as a lost cause, that all members of society are important to society even the ones that have been temporarily removed due to their wrongdoing, and that the primary role of Justice is to continually shape society into a more perfect version of itself. As such rehabilitation is somewhat at odds with the first 3 Pillars of Justice. Why? Because if you're giving someone the beating of their life, if you're beating that person bad enough to discourage anyone from doing what he or she did to incur your wrath, if you're beating them so badly his or her descendants to the third generation have traumatic memories of the beating, then you are probably not going to ever win that person back over to your side. In fact you should probably look over your shoulder and sleep with one eye open until that person converts to Buddhism, and even then you probably should remain vigilant. According to the high-minded individuals who came up with the idea of the penitentiary, the penitents would sit and contemplate how bad their actions were and how good they should have been, when they weren't being forced to do menial tasks or labor. However, when you factor in mandatory punishments, harsh sentences, harsher prison conditions, lack of societal care, lack of hope, and dim prospects of success upon possible reintegration it becomes more likely the institutionalized mind spends more of its time contemplating bitterness, survival, and additional acts of wrongdoing. This inverse reaction to a skewed application of Justice in tandem with societal factors external to the criminal justice system, leads to the levels of recidivism (repeat criminality) that plagues society and leads some to believe that rehabilitation is a lost cause. Recidivism, however, should not be seen as an indictment against rehabilitation itself.
The purpose of a society is to accomplish as a people what we cannot accomplish as an individual. As an individual one may or may not be able to forgive a wrongdoer for his or her actions, but if as a people a genuine opportunity presents itself to do just that, it must be seized. A productive, law-abiding citizen contributing to society and honoring his or her commitment to the social contract is preferable to the alternatives available if you removed rehabilitation from Justice. Not everyone can be or will be rehabilitated. Not all reform is genuine, not all reeducation sticks, and not all efforts at reintegration are successful. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon society in the pursuit of Justice not to overlook opportunities to interject compassion, mercy, and forgiveness where it appears to be deserving. This allows for healing both for the wronged and the wrongdoer. Nothing good can grow sans healing, for without it society can only fester, decay, and die from its wounds.
Equity: Securing fairness
Fairness is the very foundation of the social contract, and for that reason it is no wonder it is so important to the concept of Justice. Depending on how you reckon the issue, achieving equity might be the most difficult and least realized component in the pursuit of Justice. As humans we are not clairvoyant, we cannot read minds or hearts, humans are not perfect, and no situation involving humans is perfect either. Despite this, the rules by which we govern ourselves must strive to be and do all these things. Creating equitable outcomes for all involved (the wronged, society, and the wrongdoer) is the hallmark that Justice has been served. A Just solution may not be an amiable or satisfying solution but it must be fair; otherwise, the system fails in totality.
Restoration: compensating victims of an offense
This is the most important pillar because it deals with the most personal part of the social contract. Whenever one individual violates his or her agreement one or more persons are harmed and thus, suffer a loss - even if that victim is only the offender his or herself. In order to maintain universal buy-in to the social contract, anyone who suffers a loss should be compensated for that loss, and rightfully so. No one should be forced to be incomplete due to the actions of another when the system can make that aggrieved person whole again. This is a perfectly reasonable notion, yet execution of Justice becomes problematic when one is made incomplete by a loss of life. How does an offender or the system make another person whole again after that, how do you compensate someone for the death of another? That damage cannot be undone scientifically or in any practical method of merit when weighed against the value of a human life. The Justice system has tried to assess a monetary value to a persons' life earnings, to their societal impact, to their emotional/spiritual value, yet no amount of money can replace someone or bring them back from the dead. Eternal censure through permanent incarceration or death has also been promoted as a mode of recompense, yet again - neither bring back nor replace the dead.
At some point a line has to be drawn between vengeance, the righteous and loving pursuit of Justice, and vindictiveness, the unbalanced and relentless misapplication of will in an effort to assuage fear, anger, pain, or shame. When someone has been thoroughly punished, their incarceration deters no one, they no longer need to be censured, they have been rehabilitated, the statute that keeps them incarcerated is not equitable, and neither they nor society can restore the victim - why continue to punish the reformed individual? Is that not the essence of "cruel and unusual?" When a statute no longer or never serves any one of the Pillars of Justice, Justice is no longer being served. The system creates a new victim, a political prisoner or worse a casualty, and the offender now becomes the State. This is Injustice.
Unfortunately, Justice cannot correct the societal ills which corrupt its efforts to be exact and precise, and it cannot correct itself without external force applied by passionate citizens. Far too often what passes for Justice is not fair, has little effect on criminality, and does too little towards making the offender and the wrongdoer whole again. However, with decisions like the Supreme Court decision and the Michigan decision we as a people have been given an opportunity to examine what motivates us in the pursuit of Justice, redress long-standing policies that have only left us socially and morally impoverished, and begin to repair a long broken criminal justice system. In the years to come, after thoughtful deliberation and planning, thousands of individuals residing in America's correctional system who made horrible mistakes as children and were once condemned to never exist outside the walls of a prison but have since reformed will be reintegrated back into society and given a second chance on life. This will not be a satisfying or amiable solution to many, but when those reformed individuals are made whole again Justice will be served.
"Civilization" by Justice from Audio, Video, Disco released 2011 on Ed Banger/Because/Elektra
Comment, share, and be sure to follow me on Twitter: @RConradBane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)