Recently, a San Francisco radio host interviewed Brooklyn Federal District Court Judge Frederic Block who was plugging his memoir. During the course of the interview, the current mandatory prison sentences for viewing child pornography were discussed. In the judge’s opinion, the act of viewing child pornography did not warrant the mandated minimum of five years in prison, and he added that other judges were of the same thought.
You cannot imagine how incensed I became. The hideous fact is that those who view child pornography are willing participants in the continued assault of the victim. How have we de-evolved to the point where the judiciary considers such willing participation to be a lesser crime? They claim that viewing child pornography, while reprehensible, does not guarantee actual physical contact or even attempted physical contact with a child in the future. I guess the constant re-victimization of these assaulted children is meaningless to them.
I began to think about other crimes, once universally deemed heinous, that have apparently regressed into less than serious offenses, with less than seemingly equitable sentences. For example, to cite only a very few:
John Hinkley first came to mind. In 1981 Hinkley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. During that attempt, President Reagan was hit, James Brady was very seriously injured by a bullet to his head, and a Secret Service Officer and a policeman were shot. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, Hinkley was confined at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington DC. Over the course of his hospitalization, he has enjoyed frequent visits home, now as long as ten days. In November 2011 his attorney maintained that Hinkley is “flawed” but “fundamentally decent.” Hinkley attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, and he is now considered “fundamentally decent”? When did it become a lesser crime to attempt to assassinate the President of the United States, lesser to such an extent that the perpetrator gets frequent extended visits home?
Richard Speck systematically tortured, raped, and murdered eight student nurses in July 1966. Found guilty, he initially was given the death penalty, but in 1972 the Supreme Court declared his sentence unconstitutional, and he was resentenced to life imprisonment. In the late 1980s Chicago newsman Bill Kurtis anonymously received video tapes of Speck in prison showing explicit scenes of sex, drug use, and money being passed around by prisoners. In the video Speck, when asked why he killed the nurses, joked, "It just wasn't their night." He even says: "If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose." I saw this video when it was first televised and, it is so disgusting, I will not provide a URL for it. If you decide to look for it, be sure to have a vomit bucket handy. This was Richard Speck’s life in prison.
Bernie Madoff today is certainly not living the luxurious life-style he had grown accustomed to. Considering the misery he created, though, does anyone believe that his current multiple sentences, as they stand now, are equitable? My recommended sentencing for Bernie Madoff: that he spend every day for the rest of his life cleaning the toilets and floors of homeless shelters, that every night he should sleep on the floor of a homeless shelter, that he should only wear dirty ragged cast-off clothing.
Now we have James Holmes, the Aurora CO mass murderer, charged with twenty-four counts of first degree murder (two counts for each victim murdered), 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of an explosive device, and sentence enhancement for the violence of the crimes. When he is convicted, if he is convicted, what will his life in prison be like? (Let us not even discuss the option of execution because, even if he is so sentenced, it is more likely than not that it will be commuted to life.)
Make no mistake; I am not a “hang-‘em-high-Dirty-Harry” sort of individual. I am not an advocate of knee-jerk justice. I am an advocate of justice.
From what I have learned, a typical day in prison consists of: meals, personal hygiene time, exercises, leisure time, limited telephone calls, school, participation in work or study programs, and treatment programs as needed. At the end of the day, time is spent cleaning the cell, reading, writing letters, working out, socializing with other inmates, sometimes playing cards or watching TV. Some prisoners can have monitored access to the internet. For most people, for most crimes, this is punishment enough. (I said I wasn’t a “hang ‘em high” person.)
However, for the more heinous crimes, for the James Holmes of the world, for the Richard Specks of the world, for the John Hinkleys of the world, for the child abusers of the world, there has to be an alternative to the current quality of life that a prison life sentence offers. I would suggest the following prison life for those who commit heinous crimes:
Solitary confinement; one window in the cell to mark the passage of time; three meals; no TV; no radio; no visitors; no phone calls; no time outside; guard contact only. Let’s add to that perhaps two books: a spiritual book of their choice and one other, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare (without footnotes). To insure that due processes were followed, one, and only one, appeal.
Please note that I have not suggested the death penalty, and I will be clear about that: while I do not believe the John Wayne Gacys, the Ted Bundys, the Richard Specks, the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world merit the privilege of breathing the air, I do think that my system of incarceration would be far worse than the death penalty.
Something is terribly wrong when our judiciary has come to the conclusion that the continued participation in the assault upon children is considered less than a heinous crime. Something is terribly wrong when a political assassin gets released for visits home. Something is terribly wrong when a convicted mass murderer can pursue any and all interests and activities while serving out his life sentence.
Something is terribly wrong when we are hesitant and afraid to insure that there are equitable consequences to the commission of heinous crimes.
Until next time, LLAP!
References
No comments:
Post a Comment