Teaching is not just a two way street. Not only do students learn from the professor and the professor from the students, the professor also learns by hearing him or herself say things out loud. That is particularly true for extraverts who process information out in the open where everyone gets to play.
My class was working on the concept of restorative justice and how it is different from retributive justice. Retributive justice assigns guilt and punishes. Restorative justice identifies needs and responsibilities, and then provides an opportunity for those responsible to meet the needs.
The students were looking at the specific question of how an offender finds redemption, and which style of justice seeking would work best for that purpose. It was obvious that offenders who take responsibility for the harm they have caused and do what they can to meet the needs that result are more likely to find redemption.
I heard myself say “punishment without redemption is a waste of time.” As I have thought more about it that saying continues to sound true. What is the purpose of punishment if not to let a person pay their debt to society and be let back in? That is not how it works. These days a person who is punished carries that burden of guilt for the rest of their lives. A fortunate few are able to reintegrate with society and live productive lives. Our system creates a permanent underclass of the formerly incarcerated.
Punishment without redemption is not only a waste of time, but of valuable human resources which are permanently set aside. Since 1 out of every 100 adult Americans is currently incarcerated, and at present rates, according to the US Department of Justice, one in fifteen Americans will serve time in prison, this wasteful way of doing things is unsupportable.
We need to re-connect punishment and redemption. Without including a path to redemption, punishment is a waste.
_______________
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower teaches in the criminology and restorative justice studies program at Fresno Pacific University.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
I thought about it
Jimmy Carter confessed to an interviewer that he had committed adultery in his heart. Fortunately for Pres. Carter that is not a crime. Be careful what you think in this post 9/11 world. Sometimes the difference between thinking and doing is less than you expect. December 22, 2008 five Muslim men were convicted of conspiracy to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, an army base near Philadelphia. They could be sentenced to life in prison.
The evidence in the case consisted mostly of recorded conversations and testimony by two informants who were paid to infiltrate this terrorist cell and gather evidence. The main informant was a legal immigrant who had served time for bank fraud, been arrested for fighting with a neighbor and had filed bankruptcy.
A conviction for conspiracy requires more than just talk, of course. You have to do something in furtherance of the plan. Two actions were alleged in this case. The men purchased assault weapons through the informants, who got them from the FBI, and practiced shooting them in the Pocono Mountains. The other action was scouting nearby military bases. Fort Dix was the preferred target since the father of one of the conspirators owned a business that delivered pizza to the base.
Talking about an attack, acquiring weapons and checking out targets sounds pretty dangerous. That is what you would do if you were going on a suicide mission to kill soldiers on their own base. The jury deliberated 38 hours and rejected counts of attempted murder. It sounds like the FBI did a good job following up on the lead they received from a Circuit City clerk who called after one of the men had him transfer video of a shooting session by men shouting jihadist slogans to DVD. Heads-up police work saved the day.
The problem here is what the evidence did not show. The prosecution conceded that the men had no plan for carrying out the attack. They were unhappy about the actions of the US government, talked about it with their friends, and shot assault rifles at a range in the woods. A lot of patriotic Americans do the same. The second amendment right to bear arms is partly in furtherance of the claim of the Declaration of Independence that “. . .whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .”
The other big thing the evidence did not show was that these men were willing to die in the process of killing soldiers. The defendants included a cab driver, a convenience store clerk and three brothers who owned a roofing business. One thing we have learned about suicide jihadists is that they don’t go to work every day while they are planning their attack. The norm, to the extent one can determine such a thing, seems to be that suicide jihadists come from financially better off families and are recruited, trained and equipped by organizations. In the Fort Dix case there was no evidence of connection to any organization. The only help they had was the two informants. There was no one to celebrate their martyrdom.
The question here is whether or not we want our government to protect us by recruiting, equipping and training jihadists using informants who have nothing to lose and much to gain by producing defendants. It would have been terrible if these men had succeeded in entering Fort Dix and committing mass murder. Maybe it is worth wrongly imprisoning some big-mouthed malcontents to avoid atrocities like that.
The FBI ended the investigation and arrested the defendants after the purchase of automatic weapons. There was no plan for the attack yet, but one can assume that the FBI did not want to risk having weapons it provided used in any criminal activity, causing them to wrap the case up.
When I teach conspiracy law my students are always amazed at how little it takes to make a case. Talk and an action in support of the talk will do it. Cases usually come down to who the jury believes, not whether the necessary legal elements are present.
Had any murderous thoughts lately? Be careful who you share them with, particularly if your friend offers to get you a deal on the weapons.
_________________________________________________________
This post has been published by Fresno Pacific University as a Scholars Speak article at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/01_07_09.asp
The evidence in the case consisted mostly of recorded conversations and testimony by two informants who were paid to infiltrate this terrorist cell and gather evidence. The main informant was a legal immigrant who had served time for bank fraud, been arrested for fighting with a neighbor and had filed bankruptcy.
A conviction for conspiracy requires more than just talk, of course. You have to do something in furtherance of the plan. Two actions were alleged in this case. The men purchased assault weapons through the informants, who got them from the FBI, and practiced shooting them in the Pocono Mountains. The other action was scouting nearby military bases. Fort Dix was the preferred target since the father of one of the conspirators owned a business that delivered pizza to the base.
Talking about an attack, acquiring weapons and checking out targets sounds pretty dangerous. That is what you would do if you were going on a suicide mission to kill soldiers on their own base. The jury deliberated 38 hours and rejected counts of attempted murder. It sounds like the FBI did a good job following up on the lead they received from a Circuit City clerk who called after one of the men had him transfer video of a shooting session by men shouting jihadist slogans to DVD. Heads-up police work saved the day.
The problem here is what the evidence did not show. The prosecution conceded that the men had no plan for carrying out the attack. They were unhappy about the actions of the US government, talked about it with their friends, and shot assault rifles at a range in the woods. A lot of patriotic Americans do the same. The second amendment right to bear arms is partly in furtherance of the claim of the Declaration of Independence that “. . .whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . .”
The other big thing the evidence did not show was that these men were willing to die in the process of killing soldiers. The defendants included a cab driver, a convenience store clerk and three brothers who owned a roofing business. One thing we have learned about suicide jihadists is that they don’t go to work every day while they are planning their attack. The norm, to the extent one can determine such a thing, seems to be that suicide jihadists come from financially better off families and are recruited, trained and equipped by organizations. In the Fort Dix case there was no evidence of connection to any organization. The only help they had was the two informants. There was no one to celebrate their martyrdom.
The question here is whether or not we want our government to protect us by recruiting, equipping and training jihadists using informants who have nothing to lose and much to gain by producing defendants. It would have been terrible if these men had succeeded in entering Fort Dix and committing mass murder. Maybe it is worth wrongly imprisoning some big-mouthed malcontents to avoid atrocities like that.
The FBI ended the investigation and arrested the defendants after the purchase of automatic weapons. There was no plan for the attack yet, but one can assume that the FBI did not want to risk having weapons it provided used in any criminal activity, causing them to wrap the case up.
When I teach conspiracy law my students are always amazed at how little it takes to make a case. Talk and an action in support of the talk will do it. Cases usually come down to who the jury believes, not whether the necessary legal elements are present.
Had any murderous thoughts lately? Be careful who you share them with, particularly if your friend offers to get you a deal on the weapons.
_________________________________________________________
This post has been published by Fresno Pacific University as a Scholars Speak article at http://www.fresno.edu/scholars_speak/duane_ruth_heffelbower/01_07_09.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
