Last night I listened to O’Reilly interview Huckabee about Maurice Clemmons. Huckabee defended his commutation on the grounds that there was no way he could have foreseen this outcome.
Of course, that’s true. And, of course, that misses the point. Entirely.
If you can’t foresee the outcome of commutation, that's not a reason to commute his sentence. To the contrary, that’s a reason not to commute his sentence. A very good reason.
When in doubt, you err on the side of public safety, not on the side of the convict. A civil magistrate has no right to gamble with the lives of the innocent. If you lose the bet, who pays? Even more innocent victims.
I don’t know why it doesn’t seem to occur to Huckabee that it’s wrong to put the public at unnecessary risk. Does it have something to do with his redemptive theology? Does he think everybody deserves a second chance?
Does it have something to do with the fact that he grew up poor, and so he’s a soft touch for “disadvantaged” criminals?
Huckabee is a very eloquent social conservative. It’s a pity that he has such a blind spot. That’s a serious moral and political liability.
In fairness to Huckabee, he isn’t solely to blame. There’s plenty of blame to go around (e.g. bleeding-heart judges and permissive parole boards). But while that inculpates a number of other interested parties, it does nothing to exculpate his own complicity.
I agree Steve. FWIW, I voted for Huckabee in the GOP primaries.
ReplyDeleteWhen you show mercy to the merciless, the merciless are merciless to the merciful.
Disband Guantanomo!
;-)
I watched it too and came away with a different opinion. There are two sides to every legal matter.
ReplyDeleteMr. Clemmons was in prison on a 108 year sentence for crimes committed at the age of 16 (or thereabouts), none of which involved homicide. Burglary and purse snatching, primarily (although admittedly there was a weapons possession charge). He had not yet manifested the psychotic behavior that has now come to light.
Huckabee thought the sentence was overly harsh for a 16 year old burglar and reduced it. That's all. With the information he had at the time, he made a judgment call. Governors do it every day and it's unproductive to second-guess with hindsight.
You can't keep every criminal in prison for life, on the off chance they might kill somebody. It's just not gonna happen. The person responsible for the deaths of those officers is Maurice Clemmons, who is now dead himself. Blaming the legal system for the acts of criminals appears to me to be reactionary and short-sighted.
Gov. Huckabee's commutation is the most defensible of the law enforcement/judicial acts which continued to let this guy go free. The Arkansas parole board, and the courts in Washington, had much more info on Clemmons' unusual behavior and violence against police than Huckabee did.
This may end up being his "Willie Horton" (I don't think he will run for Prez anyway, tho), but if so he's got a much better explanation than Michael Dukakis did.
It always amazes me when people argue for a commutation of a sentence based on the convict's age.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people assume criminal behavior at an adolescent age is "sowing wild oats", so to speak? You know, "the kid will grow out of it...he's young!"
If anything, criminal acts committed in one's youth show us what sort of man he's growing into. We mustn't base sentencing on what we think of a man's "reformability", sentencing must be based upon the degree of the offense.
JONAH SAID:
ReplyDelete"With the information he had at the time, he made a judgment call."
That wasn't a forced option. He didn't have to make a judgment call at all.
"Governors do it every day..."
Badly.
"...and it's unproductive to second-guess with hindsight."
To the contrary, unless elected official are held accountable, they have no incentive to do better.
"You can't keep every criminal in prison for life, on the off chance they might kill somebody."
Alternative: execute career criminals.
"It's just not gonna happen."
To the contrary, I'd expect that most voters is red and purple states would support tougher measures.
"The person responsible for the deaths of those officers is Maurice Clemmons, who is now dead himself."
That's too all-or-nothing.
"Blaming the legal system for the acts of criminals appears to me to be reactionary and short-sighted."
Of course we should blame the legal system. Why do we have a legal system if the first place if not to protect us from the criminal element?
That's the job of the legal system. To protect us from criminals.
Is the legal system solely to blame? No. But it shares the blame.
"This may end up being his 'Willie Horton' (I don't think he will run for Prez anyway, tho), but if so he's got a much better explanation than Michael Dukakis did."
True, but to say Huckabee is tougher on crime than Dukakis isn't a very flattering standard of comparison.
Moreover, this isn't the only dubious pardon or commutation on Huckabee's watch.
STEVE said:
ReplyDelete"Alternative: execute career criminals."
Easy to say, difficult to implement. Define "career criminal", for starters. And how do we decide which crimes are serious enough to warrant death? We could use the Levitical law, I suppose (HT to RJ Rushdoony), but would a wooden application of that be appropriate for 21st century America? If not, how do we decide, within the bounds of "cruel and unusual punishment"?
"That's too all-or-nothing."
No it isn't. What you're doing is tantamount to blaming the jury who acquits someone for a crime subsequently committed by the defendant. The jury has to decide the case based on the evidence presented, not based on what they think might happen if they let the guy go (or what might happen if they don't, viz. the OJ Simpson jury).
"That's the job of the legal system. To protect us from criminals."
Partially true, but an oversimplification. It is the job of the police to protect us from criminals. It is the job of the legal system to protect us from the government (or each other, in civil cases). Criminal trials are for the benefit of the defendant, not the public. All the rights associated with criminal cases in the Constitution are conferred on the accused. It's to prevent "mob justice" and overly aggressive police and prosecutors from tossing anyone they don't like in jail.
"Moreover, this isn't the only dubious pardon or commutation on Huckabee's watch."
Perhaps so, but beside the point. We are talking about this particular case. If you'd like to mount an argument that Mike Huckabee is "soft on crime" in general, then I invite you to do so.
"That wasn't a forced option. He didn't have to make a judgment call at all." -Steve
ReplyDeleteAmen. This guy was doing his time, leave him do.
"If you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime". -John Wayne, Cahill U S Marshal, I think.
Just a few points from someone who never cared that much for Huckabee (I was a Fred Thompson man).
ReplyDelete1) In fairness to him, Huckabee merely shortened the sentence from 108 years to, if I recall correctly, 47. The parole board itself then reduced it to 11 years. So technically, had the parole board done nothing, the accused would still be in jail right now.
2) With all the reference to "the legal system" it might benefit us to remember a salient fact: the legal system originally sentenced this guy to 108 years. One man decided that was too much and overruled the judge and jury, enabling the parole board to then release the guy after doing less than 10% of his original sentence. Apparently, those who actually attended the trial understood far better the character of the man than did the governor and the later parole boards.
3) My own personal belief is that number 2 above is caused by pop liberal psychology that wishes to deflect blame from the criminal, which results in the necessary assignment of blame to the victim. Furthermore, we see the widespread belief that people cannot be responsible for their actions if they are "trapped" in a certain lifestyle, etc. In other words, the justice system is run by Arminians....
Peter Pike: "In other words, the justice system is run by Arminians...."
ReplyDeleteI knew it, I knew it, I knew it. Those freakin' liberal Arminians are ruining... everything!
Merciful conservative Calvinists show mercy to the merciless liberal Arminians and what kinda thanks do we get? None! Actually worse than none! They pay back good with evil.
From now on, liberal Arminians are gonna get what they dish out and what's been comin' to 'em.
I'm sickin' Peter Pike and Steve Hays on you LibberArmies. Get 'em boys!
;-)
Jonah said, re: the execution of "career criminals":
ReplyDeleteEasy to say, difficult to implement. Define "career criminal", for starters. And how do we decide which crimes are serious enough to warrant death? We could use the Levitical law, I suppose (HT to RJ Rushdoony), but would a wooden application of that be appropriate for 21st century America? If not, how do we decide, within the bounds of "cruel and unusual punishment"?
I think that examining the Scriptures, specifically the OT civil law, is exactly how we'd decide which crimes are serious enough to warrant death. I doubt anybody would advocate a "wooden" application of many of the civil laws in the OT, seeing as the laws' applications are somewhat "dated" to ANE culture. However, the principles behind the laws are certainly worth investigating, wouldn't you agree?
Our modern day "justice" system doesn't seem very "just" at all (where we define justice biblically). The Bible is quite clear that execution should be the punishment upon murderers (not lifetime imprisonment at the expense of the victims!). The concept of criminals making restitution to their victims has gone by the wayside, unfortunately, as has the biblical concept of bondservitude.
However, I'm not being facetious when I say I'd be in favor of public stoning as an acceptable means of capital punishment. It involves the community in the heavy task of disposing execution--not an unknown executioner in a sterile room far out of the public's view. I'd say that potential criminals, seeing sanctions such as this, would be far less likely to commit crimes.
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in principle. The question I was trying to ask was, is what you (and every other Reconstructionist) suggest do-able given the US Constitution and the current state of American jurisprudence? We have to work within the system, moving it back toward a Biblical basis. It took us 200+ years to get into this mess, it may take longer to get out.
And, FWIW, the concept of restitution is alive and well. In Oklahoma, where I live, restitution is almost always a part of any criminal sentence, or plea agreement.
I suppose what I'm saying is that, no matter how you slice it, there will always be guys like Clemmons that fall through the cracks. We can do our best to limit the number of times it happens, but it will happen. There's not a Governor in the USA who hasn't made such a decision that he or she later regretted.
You might say that the age of the offender shouldn't matter. Maybe you're right. You might say that Governors should not have the power to change the results of criminal trials. Again, you may be right. You might say the answer to the prison overcrowding problem is more executions and indentured servitude. x3.
I am a Reconstructionist, but I'm also realistic about the time frame. I firmly believe that man lives well when he bases his entire life, including human government, around God's Word. But such will require a fundamental shift in the way the citizens of the USA think. Our portion at this time is to set ourselves on that road. We must leave it to future generations to finish the job.
Jonah,
ReplyDeleteIt has to start with us (Christians). We need to be the ones replacing unbelieving lawmakers, judges, police officers, jailers etc. We can't beat something with nothing. And these people have to be a gift of God; they have to be prepared and raised up. Therefore, we can pray for them, ask God for them, even BE them if necessary. That kind of responsibility scares the willies out of me, but it needs to happen if Christians are ever to escape the culturally irrelevant position we've (voluntarily) relegated ourselves to by embracing a reduced form of Christianity.
We can also enable and encourage the people to protect themselves and their own families from criminals, not rely solely upon the police for protection. Self-defense and more importantly the defense of others is a biblical concept.
Also, as we Reconstuctionists acknowledge, this type of social change can't happen with top-down imposition of control; that's power religion, not dominion religion. The fundamental thesis of Reconstructionism has been gospel-driven, Spirit-empowered, grassroots activism resulting in long run social change, as you say. And we need to manage our own respective spheres of influence first. From the individual's relationship with God, to the family, to the church, to the government. As such, the particulars of the application of biblical law varies from individual to individual.
That's neat to hear about restitution in Oklahoma. Out of curiosity, how does the restitution principle cash out in practice? And what happens when the criminal has insufficient resources to make restitution in the absence of bondservitude?
In our state, restitution is based on the court's assessment of the financial loss to the victim. The DA in each case provides a cash value report to the judge, who then implements a payment plan for the offender.
ReplyDeleteHere in OK, we pay our prisoners for work they do while they are inmates. They have a factory where they build furniture and other such things for use by state agencies. Yes, they also make license plates. :) They also are the maintenance crew for the facility they are in, and they do construction work as well. For the ones who didn't finish high school, this teaches them a useful trade.
For restitution purposes, if the offender is incarcerated, then his prison wages are garnished to pay the victim back.
Does the "financial loss" determined by the court have a penalty attached? Or is it a 1-to-1 ratio (e.g. if I steal something worth $20, do I make restitution of $20 or $40: restitution x 2)?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound ideal (the load on the taxpayers remains, and the criminal doesn't have the benefit of exposure to or even participation in a covenant household), but at least it's a step in the right direction. The idea of learning a trade is good, and that would have been the case with biblical bondservitude as well.
I guess I'm getting somewhat off topic. Sorry, Steve.
Note: word verification is "troll". I'm trying not to be!