#229 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday December 23)
Good morning,
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
I want to juxtapose two politically motivated acts of violence and the different ways in which people view the perpetrators.
SIRHAN SIRHAN AND PAROLE
Last month, a panel of the state parole board recommended parole, on its 16th consideration, for the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan. Many will recall that Kennedy was the leading Democratic candidate for president in 1968. Sirhan murdered Kennedy in the bowels of the Ambassador Hotel in California after Kennedy delivered a speech acknowledging his victory in the California primary.
Mr. Sirhan has not demonstrated contrition (he claims no memory of his acts). Until he does, there isn’t much to talk about. But is offers the opportunity to consider the role of rehabilitiation and mercy in our cirminatl justice system. I’ve learned a fair amount recently about the Jewish concept of teshuvah (loosely translated as “turning,” as in “turning from doing wrong to doing good”), which dovetails nicely with the concept of parole as it should be practiced. In abbreviated form, a person should be forgiven and welcomed back to society when they (a) acknowledge what they did was wrong, (b) apologize to those who were wronged and change their behaviors, and (c) provide some form of restitution. In a criminal case, restitution most typically is measured by “paying one’s debt to society” by serving a term in prison and exhibiting exemplary behavior. Nowhere in the formulation of teshuvah is there a notion that those who still harbor resentment or pain can refuse to accept that a person has rehabilitated or “turned.” In our criminal justice system, however, victims’ family members, prosecutors and others can appear to argue against parole even after the “debt to society” has been repaid.
HERE'S THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
What if Sirhan, instead of claiming he “didn’t remember” the acts on that day in 1968, were to acknowledge the act and genuinely apologize for the act? In that instance, in my view, the state should set him free. That said, he didn’t and the state shouldn’t.
But what is the case for freeing Sirhan? Again, were he to acknowledge his wrongdoing, the case is strong. Sirhan has served over 50 years in prison for his crime. During his prison term, he apparently has been a model prisoner. This septuagenarian poses no risk to society. He is aging in prison, where the State must feed and care for him and eventually serve as his caregiver through disability and death.
In many parole hearings around the country, prosecutors lobby parole boards against parole because of the nature of a crime committed decades previously. And family members of victims appear to argue that they cannot get their loved ones back and their desire for retribution has not yet been sated. And while this sort of testimony can be heart-wrenching, they had their day in court when the prisoner was found guilty. Once convicted and sentenced, society has ruled on the crime and its punishment. The parole process should be about teshuvah—contrition, rehabilitation, and better behavior—all conditional on demonstrating little risk to society.
If we stand for anything in our system of justice, it should be that at some point a person has served their time and paid their debt to society IF (and it’s a big if) they show contrition. If they have behaved well, there should be the opportunity to live out their lives in peace. Notwithstanding that some of the Kennedy children and many of his supporters believe Sirhan should die in prison (although others support probate), they no longer have standing to complain. In any event, until true contrition, Sirhan should remain in prison.
THE INSURRECTIONISTS
There are a number of people who have not yet been punished for their actions, also political crimes. Many of the same people who want Sirhan to spend his last days in prison are finding rationalizations, justifications, and alternate history to cover for these people’s traitorous and violent acts. But I’ll let Greg Olear speak, in words more direct and picturesque than mine:
“…January 6 was the worst attack on our democracy since Booth shot Lincoln. While Booth acted alone at Ford’s Theater, he was part of a larger plot to overthrow the government. One of his conspirators attacked, but failed to kill, William Seward, the Secretary of State. Another lost his nerve, opting against assassinating Andrew Johnson, the Vice President. Others gave material aid to the plotters. Do you know what happened to these traitors, the so-called Lincoln conspirators? Booth was hunted down and killed by a U.S. marshal. His mates were arrested, convicted, and hanged.
I’m not saying we should get medieval on our current crop of traitors. It’s probably not wise to grant the government the power to execute people, even evil people, even the worst of the worst. But that doesn’t mean we should let bygones be bygones and chalk armed insurrection up to foolish indiscretion or mass MAGA hysteria. Violent attempts to overthrow the government should not be treated like jaywalking or smoking joints at the Barry Manilow concert in Central Park. When it comes to treason, I’d rather we err on the side of Hammurabi.
In addition to Trump himself, there are four powerful and dangerous men involved with the Big Lie: Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Erik Prince. All four have run afoul of the law. Three have been indicted, two convicted—and three pardoned, corruptly, by the outgoing Former Guy. They are all clearly bad guys. And yet they remain free to ply their seditious trade, which mostly involves poisoning American minds with disinformation and propaganda cooked up by foreign intelligence services.”
We shall now see whether these contributors to the “big lie,” the attempt to overturn a valid election the insurrection will comply with Congressional subpoenas.
LYING ABOUT A CRIME FOR POLITICAL REASONS
Here we are, nearly ten months since this crime and we have the Republicans in the House refusing to participate in its investigation. Not only that, but they and the electorate have set upon punishing the two Republicans who have broken rank in order to participate on the committee investigating this attack. Many Republicans are arguing that January 6th was just a peaceful protest in the fine tradition of American protests. They ignore the film of these events, the testimony of the peace officers attacked in this event, the words of those involved, the specific reference to causing harm to specific named lawmakers, and the presence of bomb material at nearby office buildings.
Crime apparently is defined by certain people selectively. Punishment apparently need not fit the crime. The passage of time, good behavior and the value of forgiveness seem not to matter to some in thinking about parole. In the second instance, a crime may not even be a crime after all, notwithstanding it being exhaustively well-documented, if its denial furthers one’s political objectives. The consequences for the crime of insurrection do not serve the political objectives of those attempting to wrest our democracy away from us, before our very eyes.
In case you weren’t sure how bad January 6th was, or what it represents for our democracy and what I believe is the coming spate of political violence, read this short, thoughtful piece from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/10/hbo-four-hours-at-the-capitol-january-6-documentary-review/620464/?utm_source=facebook&utm_term=2021-10-22T16%3A15%3A39&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&fbclid=IwAR0N6bFQHSnAJh4bILAGy0fgG8eDvUL2OBvt6wOyOAeBJ7Erv_ptnKQ9stU
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: