This searing article depresses me and makes me angry.
Many of the women got pregnant young. Many were abused by boyfriends or raised in horrible conditions as children.
Most are in prison for drug offenses. They should not be incarcerated. There is no reason for it. Perhaps drug treatment would help them. But drug abuse is a victimless crime.
The other crimes described in the article – committed by these “horrible creatures” — seem almost petty.
The woman prisoner mentioned at the beginning of article was “shackled to a wall” during the interview.
She and many of the other women have been cruelly separated from their children. It’s a system that perpetuates abuse and cruelty and that causes a continuous cycle of misery, from generation to generation.
Abuse – if not barbarity — by the “corrections” system is monstrous and unremitting.
And, we profess to lecture other nations about respecting the essential worth and dignity of each individual and adhering to the doctrine of human rights.
— Roger W. Smith
November 26, 2016
***********************************************
“I know some of you are glaring at this article and thinking: It’s their own fault. If they don’t want to go to prison, they shouldn’t commit crimes!
“That scorn derives partly from a misunderstanding of drug abuse, which is a central reason for mass female incarceration in America (and a major reason for mass incarceration of men as well, although to a lesser degree). As Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, the surgeon general, noted in releasing a major report this month: “It’s time to change how we view addiction. Not as a moral failing but as a chronic illness.” In short, we should think of drugs not primarily through the criminal justice lens but as a public health crisis.”
re: “Kathleen Kane, Former Pennsylvania Attorney General, Is Sentenced to Prison,” The New York Times, October 24, 2016
The article states:
The brief, unlikely political career of Kathleen G. Kane, Pennsylvania’s brightest rising star when she was elected attorney general less than four years ago, came to a humiliating close on Monday when a judge sentenced her to 10 to 23 months in prison for her conviction on charges of perjury and abuse of her office.
She was convicted of illegally leaking grand jury records in an attempt to discredit a critic and then lying about it to a different grand jury. In August, a Common Pleas Court jury here found her guilty of two felony perjury charges and seven misdemeanor counts, forcing her to resign from office.
She broke down in tears on Monday while testifying at her sentencing hearing, pleading with the judge to consider her two teenage sons.
“Maybe I deserve everything I get; they don’t,” she said. “I am not going to ask for your mercy because I don’t care about me anymore.”
Called to testify on her behalf, her son Chris, 15, said: “My mom is like my rock. We just know that we can’t lose our mom.”
She faced a maximum sentence of 12 to 24 years in prison, but her lawyers argued that the loss of her career and reputation was punishment enough.
Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy, however, said, “Any lesser sentence than total confinement will absolutely depreciate the seriousness of the crime.”
Ms. Kane grew up in Scranton and worked there as an assistant district attorney, specializing in prosecuting sex crimes.
“In her first few months in office, she rejected [former Pennsylvania Governor Tom] Corbett’s plan to privatize management of the state lottery, refused to defend in court the state’s ban on gay marriage, offered only a lukewarm defense of a voter identification law, and exposed corruption at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. She also gave a promotion to her twin sister — who had worked for years in the attorney general’s office — prompting accusations of nepotism.
*************************************************
Commentary:
I don’t care what the facts of this case are. I would care if it were a heinous crime. This case does not involve a heinous crime.
Figuring out what Ms. Kane is guilty of is difficult for the average reader – unacquainted with the case and Pennsylvania politics – like myself.
But, there is no point is sending Ms. Kane to jail.
Separating her from her teenage sons.
It is indicated in other articles about the case that she is separated from her husband and is undergoing divorce proceedings. Therefore, it would seem that the hardship of her being separated for a year or two from her sons will be even worse than if her children lived in a situation where there was an intact marriage with two parents at home.
Of course, none of this mattered, or matters, to the judge. She has to make a point. Has to have her pound of flesh.
It appears that Ms. Kane not only got on the wrong side of the law, but that she was also on the wrong side politically, as far as many public officials were concerned. Perhaps she was a scheming, devious, manipulative, power hungry office holder. Perhaps she abused her office.
I still don’t think she should be sent to prison.
The prison system is full of people who should not be there. Keeping them locked up does no good. It’s a system that perpetuates cruelty, plain and simple. There is no other way to construe or view it.
— posted by Roger W. Smith
October 2016
************************************************
See also:
“Pennsylvania Attorney General Quits on Heels of Perjury Conviction,” The New York Times, August 16, 2016
“Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Is Convicted on All Counts,” The New York Times, August 15, 2016
“Perjury Trial Begins for Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General,” The New York Times, August 9, 2016
“Pennsylvania Attorney General Faces Arraignment,” The New York Times, August 8, 2015
“Pennsylvania Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, Charged in Leak Case,” The New York Times, August 6, 2015
“Fall in Fortunes for Pennsylvania Attorney General,” The New York Times, February 3, 2015
“Grand Jury Recommends Pennsylvania Attorney General Be Charged With Perjury,” The New York Times, January 21, 2015
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
— John 3-11 (King James Version)
It is not you alone who know what it is to be evil;
I am he who knew what it was to be evil;
I too knitted the old knot of contrariety,
Blabb’d, blush’d, resented, lied, stole, grudg’d,
Had guile, anger, lust, hot wishes I dared not speak,
Was wayward, vain, greedy, shallow, sly, cowardly, malignant;
The wolf, the snake, the hog, not wanting in me,
The cheating look, the frivolous word, the adulterous wish, not wanting,
Refusals, hates, postponements, meanness, laziness, none of these wanting.
Jon Cruz, age 33, was a teacher and debate coach at the Bronx High School of Science in New York City, one of the city’s most competitive high schools. He was arrested in March 2015 on charges that he persuaded three teenage boys to send him nude or suggestive photographs in exchange for gift cards. He was charged with possessing, receiving, and producing child pornography, whereupon he resigned his teaching positon.
Cruz was a popular figure at the school. He was recognized as a tireless coach for the speech and debate team, which became a formidable national competitor under his leadership (New York Times).
The Times noted:
The charge carries a minimum prison term of five years and a maximum of 20. As part of the plea, the prosecution agreed to recommend a sentence of approximately 11 to 14 years. That range is just advisory, however, and Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York will sentence Mr. Cruz in January [2017].
announced the charges that were brought against Cruz on the day he was arrested (March 6, 2015) in his Manhattan apartment. The charges were:
— one count of production of child pornography;
— one count of receiving child pornography;
— one count of possessing child pornography.
According to the press release:
For production of child pornography, CRUZ faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. For his receipt of child pornography, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. For his possession of child pornography, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
*************************************************
The charges sound grave, and they are serious ones for an educator who worked with teenage boys. But, I do not think it unreasonable to ask, what has Cruz — who has pleaded guilty and who confessed when he was first apprehended — done? Are his crimes deserving of a draconian sentence?
I am not employed by the FBI. But, using layman’s judgment, I would say that the criminal activities Cruz was charged with – in my own words, absent legal jargon – can be “boiled down,” so to speak, as follows:
— Disguising his identity, Cruz attempted to befriend teenage boys via the Internet and, over time, encouraged them to send photos of themselves to him. He would encourage them to pose erotically. In several of the photos that Cruz received, the boys posed naked with erect penises. In a few others, they were flexing their muscles.
— The criminal complaint indicates that 30 photos of naked boys aged fourteen to sixteen were found on Cruz’s computer in his Manhattan apartment.
That seems to be the sum total of what Cruz did.
It does not seem to be the kind of activity that usually comes to mind when one thinks of child pornography.
What was Cruz NOT charged with:
— rape, groping, or molestation;
— actual sexual acts;
— making the photos public or disseminating them;
— making pornographic videos.
In fact, the only contact with this “victims” was anonymously via the Internet.
details Cruz’s exchanges via Facebook and text messages with teenage boys. It provides details about the number and types of photos he obtained. The photos included:
— several photos of naked teenage boys with erect penises;
— photos of boys in their underwear pointing to their crotches;
— photos in which boys struck poses requested by Cruz such as showing their bare feet or flexing their muscles;
— “thumbs up” selfies of non naked boys.
Apparently, there were 30 photos on Cruz’s computer of teenage boys posing nude. It appears that Cruz will be sentenced to more than ten years. This for possessing 30 photos on his computer of boys posing nude, not engaging in sex acts. (Cruz did occasionally discuss sexual acts with the boys over the Internet, but this did not go any further.)
Cruz was charged with, and convicted of, “producing child pornography.” I can see no common sense foundation or basis for such a charge. He did not even take the photos of the boys.
Setting aside for a moment the legal or criminal aspects of the case—I am repeating myself, I realize; but I can’t help asking the question again — what nefarious behavior is Cruz guilty of, what abhorrent things has he done?
–he trolled and, undeniably — to a limited extent — preyed upon teenage boys under age eighteen;
— he did not force them to comply, but he talked them into sending him photos, which he offered to (and did) pay for;
— he did not produce kiddie porn, nor view (insofar as what is alleged in the criminal complaint) or disseminate such pornography, with the exception of the 30 photos of teenage boys found on his computer, not all of which were pornographic.
In practice (leaving aside legal questions for a moment), what damage or harm has his criminal activity caused?
— an offense to public morals and common decency, compounded by the fact that he was a high school teacher working daily with students (he was not, however, changed with criminal activity involving his students);
— psychological damage that may have and probably did occur, to a greater or lesser degree, in some of the incidents in which Cruz procured the photos, since he was, using a fake identity, encouraging the boys to engage in questionable and illegal activity with him — specifically, sending him the photos — when they were under age, quite possibly not certain and perhaps confused about their sexuality, and who, because of this, could therefore experience psychological damage or impairment from such activity, activity not initiated by them.
This is questionable behavior. If I were the principal or administrator at Cruz’s school, I would be concerned. If I were the parent of one of the affected boys, I would be more than just concerned.
You know what I think should be done which such offenders? (I realize that few will agree with me.) They should be required to undergo counseling.
In the press (e.g., the New York Daily News), Cruz was referred to as the “perv,” the “pervy teacher” and the “twisted” teacher.
Granted his behavior was not admirable; nor was it healthy for those concerned, including Cruz himself, I would aver. But, when it comes to perversions, I would bet that many people are or have been subject to thoughts and urges that, if made public, they would be ashamed of, which Walt Whitman had the prescience to point out a century and a half ago.
We should not crucify people for perversions. We should try to help them.
Though the majority would find Cruz’s sexual desires and curiosity perhaps abnormal, strange, or offputting, and though he went about it in a devious fashion, I would imagine that, from a gay perspective, his desires would be considered normal. He did get to the point where he could not control his urges and manage them, and got himself in trouble.
For this, I repeat, I think he would have benefited from counseling.
“I just want to say to my family and friends and former students who are here that I am very, very sorry,” Cruz stated in court on September 23, 2016 when he pleaded guilty.
The fact is that punishments for what is considered deviant behavior have varied over time, as mores have evolved. In colonial times, rape, sodomy, bestiality, buggery, adultery, and incest were all capital crimes.
Consider the case of Newton Arvin, the so called Scarlet Professor. Arvin (1900-1963) taught at Smith College for 38 years and won numerous awards for literary scholarship. He was forced into retirement in 1960 after pleading guilty to charges stemming from the possession of pictures of semi-nude males that the law deemed pornographic. Nowadays, possessing such photos (of adult males) would not be considered criminal.
Arvin pleaded guilty, paid fines of $1,200, was given a one-year suspended sentence, and was placed on probation. Smith College suspended Arvin from teaching. Shortly after his arrest, Arvin spent some time in Northampton State Hospital, where he was admitted for suicidal depression.
Jon Cruz’s proposed sentence is far too severe. He had much good to offer society and his students. It is a shame to see his life destroyed by behavior of his that did violate the letter of the law and which was not admirable, but which is being made out to be far worse than it actually was. There are remedies other than a long period of incarceration which will last until he is well into middle age. He should have been sentenced lightly, and I would say, what he and many nonviolent offenders like him should get is treatment.
The mother of a recent Bronx High School of Science student said in a letter to the court that she did not condone what Jon Cruz was accused of doing but that he was “not a monster,” and that he had helped many young people grow and flourish.
It is sad to contemplate that few people exhibit a like degree of wisdom, good judgment, and humanity.
Cannot we see the goodness in people as well as their failings?
“[T]he law is a ass–a idiot” (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51).
“This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco and Durham, N.C., combined. Why?,” The New York Times, September 2, 2016
Donnie Gaddis picked the wrong county to sell 15 oxycodone pills to an undercover officer.
If Mr. Gaddis had been caught 20 miles to the east, in Cincinnati, he would have received a maximum of six months in prison, court records show. In San Francisco or Brooklyn, he would probably have received drug treatment or probation, lawyers say.
But Mr. Gaddis lived in Dearborn County, Ind., which sends more people to prison per capita than nearly any other county in the United States. After agreeing to a plea deal, he was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison.
“Years? Holy Toledo — I’ve settled murders for a lot less than that,” said Philip Stephens, a public defender in Cincinnati.
Also note:
“Correction,” The New York Times, September 3, 2016
An article on Friday about a boom in prisons in mostly white, rural and politically conservative areas referred incompletely to the sentencing of Donnie Gaddis, who was charged with selling oxycodone pills to an undercover officer. While Indiana law required him to serve 12 years, he was sentenced to 16 years, not to 12.
Here’s my short take on this shocking and depressing news story, for what it’s worth.
Our so called criminal “justice” system is supposed to be a rational one. It’s anything but.
There is no logic, rationality, or fairness to it whatsoever.
The punishment described in this article — 16 years for selling 115 oxycodone pills to an undercover officer — is draconian, unjust, cruel.
And, of course, the offender, Donnie Gaddis, was entrapped, set up by an undercover officer.
And, we supposedly live in a civilized society governed by enlightened laws which other societies and times either did not or still do not have the benefit of.
I also feel that our whole policy with respect to laws governing drugs is misguided, to put it kindly.
It was a victimless crime. It involved drugs, which don’t seem to me much worse than alcohol. So someone made an illegal sale? Sixteen years? How about zero years? Or how about a mandated drug treatment program?
What harm was done to anyone by this supposedly horrendous crime by this supposedly vile creature?
The “criminal justice” system is staffed by bottom feeders who go after petty criminals who are easy to set up and arrest. It keeps the functionaries of the system busy and employed; gives them something remunerative to do; fattens their arrest and conviction records and lines their pockets as public employees; makes them look good (in their own eyes, at least).
All at the expense of the losers who get caught in the web and punished unfairly.
Totally unfairly.
– Roger W. Smith
September 2016
*********************************************
addendum:
JUST
adjective
definition: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair (“a just and democratic society”)
Donald Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, and to “load it up with some bad dudes.” According to a leaked memo obtained by CNN, those prisoners will include American ISIS supporters—which, critics say, will likely mean American Muslims, deprived of their constitutional rights. “I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” Trump has said, adding, in other appearances, “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work—torture works,” and “If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing to us.”
— Connie Bruck, “Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantánamo,” The New Yorker, August 1, 2016
President Obama granted clemency to 46 nonviolent drug offenders in July 2015.
Washington Post reporters and editors tracked down the individuals who received clemency and have recorded their stories in condensed form.
[President Obama] granted clemency to 46 nonviolent drug offenders last July [2015], many of whom were sentenced under laws that no longer exist ….
More than 40 Post reporters and editors worked to track down the individuals who received clemency … and record their stories, which we present here in condensed form.
*************************************************
This article is highly pertinent in view of our insane sentencing policies.
I think it should be considered for a Pulitzer Prize.
It makes one feel and realize in very human terms how horrible the criminal “justice” system is and what its draconian sentences for petty crimes have done and are doing to people and their families.
Note that a preponderance of those incarcerated who have suffered horrible deprivation for victimless “crimes” are black.
Surprised?
— Roger W. Smith
July 2016
*************************************************
In this great country, when a court makes a mistake, we like to believe that the system is just and corrections are available, but that’s not always the case. Don’t ever go to prison in this country — stay away from the criminal justice system. It is an industry out of control, with no one willing or able to tackle it and implement true, humane fairness and justice.
— John M. Wyatt, Las Cruces, N.M. (one of the ex-offenders granted clemency who are quoted in the article)
*************************************************
Addendum: the following are the charges — for victimless crimes — brought against and the sentences that were given to the 46 felons who were interviewed for the article:
life in prison for distribution of crack
60 months in prison for cultivation of marijuana plants; 20 years in prison for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 marijuana plants
life in prison for possession and distribution of crack, and for aiding and abetting
180 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack, and for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime
240 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute crack
240 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack
240 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute crack
240 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack, and for possession with intent to distribute crack
292 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack
240 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, possession with the intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, use of a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, possession with the intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing cocaine, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, and endeavoring to influence and impede the administration of justice
360 months in prison for conspiracy to violate narcotics laws
life in prison for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and for possession with intent to distribute marijuana
life in prison for distribution of crack
life in prison for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack, and for distribution of crack
360 months in prison for distribution of cocaine
262 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute crack
life in prison for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack
262 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute crack
life in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and for distribution of, cocaine and crack
240 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute, and for possession with intent to distribute, more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of crack
life in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances
188 months in prison for distribution of crack
240 months in prison for possession with the intent to distribute crack
240 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, for use of a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a drug-trafficking offense, and for aiding and abetting
240 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and for distribution of, five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack
262 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute marijuana
This post concerns a story in The New York Times that may have been overlooked by many people, the story having been published on a holiday.
“One Robber’s 3 Life Sentences: ’90s Legacy Fills Prisons Today”
By Timothy Williams
The New York Times
July 4, 2016
It is another story about the absolute lunacy — the unfairness — of our “criminal justice” system. The sentence is ridiculous, cruel, uncalled for.
Justice is supposed to be applied rationally. It is supposed to be a system based on abstract principles which have been codified whereby people who let their passions and criminal instincts get the best of them are subject to “correction” by an ordered system in which the law is applied (supposedly) rationally, so that the person “out of control” (the criminal) is brought to heel by officials (judges, prosecutors, correction officers, and so on) who apply the law strictly, yet fairly and impartially.
The system is anything but fair or rational. It makes absolutely no sense.
There is no other way to put it.
Someday, someone is going to write a major work of literature – a new Les Misérables, a new House of the Dead, a new J’accuse – that will make the public feel the horror and injustice of all this.
But, I am sure that for the present this will not bother most people, including those who bother to read this blog, any more than did another recent post of mine:
Roger W. Smith, re: “British Man Sentenced to 40 Years in Al Qaeda Plot to Attack London Airport”
email to Roger Smith from Vandy Singleton (Leonard Singleton’s wife)
July 20, 2016
Thank you, Roger, for this and your more lengthy reply online. I just thought it important to tell you that indeed someone does care and very much so. You are not alone in caring about humanity. Believe me I understand how frustrating it can be and sometimes it seems that I am on an island completely alone fighting for true equality and justice. But on this journey, I have found some — just a few — willing to fight the “good” fight with me. Again, thank you for posting a link to the article and for caring about Lenny’s situation.
Some conclusions to be drawn from this story. (In my view, they are incontrovertible.)
Petty “offenders” get arrested and picked on by the police for the merest of “crimes” (see also the case of Eric Garner) and sometimes for no reason at all (see the case of Amadou Diallo).
Black lives – in the view of police and law enforcement – count for less.
The self-appointed law and order types and hanging judges could care less.
Thanks to the New York Daily News for their intrepid, dogged reporting and courage in reporting this story. I hope they don’t fold.
An operative for Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen who was trained in bomb-making by Anwar al-Awlaki and agreed to carry out an attack targeting Americans and Israelis at Heathrow Airport in London was sentenced to 40 years in prison on Friday [May 27, 2016) in Manhattan.
The operative, Minh Quang Pham, 33, never carried out the attack after returning home to Britain in summer 2011, and in a letter to the judge, he said he had only agreed to the plot in order to get out of Yemen and return home. Mr. Pham, who was extradited from Britain to the United States last year, pleaded guilty in January to three terrorism-related charges.
But the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said Mr. Pham had not carried out the attack because he knew he was under surveillance by the authorities after returning to Britain.
Mr. Pham traveled secretly to Yemen in 2010, swore allegiance to the terrorist group, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or A.Q.A.P., and worked on its online propaganda publication, Inspire.
Under questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he said that while he was in Yemen, he approached Mr. Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric who had become A.Q.A.P.’s leading English-language propagandist, and volunteered to “sacrifice himself” in a suicide attack upon returning to Britain.
He said Mr. Awlaki taught him how to mix chemicals to make an explosive device, and even showed him how to tape bolts around the bomb to act as deadly shrapnel when the device exploded. Mr. Awlaki had also said to target the airport attack on arrivals from the United States or Israel.
The judge, Alison J. Nathan of Federal District Court, said she agreed with the government’s position that Mr. Pham had intended to conduct the bombing and condemned his role in what she called a “murderous plot.”
She said Mr. Pham had been a “trusted, skilled and, for a time, dedicated participant” in A.Q.A.P, and that she believed aspects of that continued even after he returned to Britain.
The government had suggested a 50-year sentence. Anna M. Skotko, a prosecutor, told the judge that there was no evidence Mr. Pham had disavowed his allegiance to the terrorist group. …
Mr. Pham, weeping at one point, told the judge that he had made a “very serious mistake.”
“My thinking was wrong at the time,” he said, adding, “All I can say is I have reformed.”
Mr. Pham, who was born in Vietnam, lived in Britain since childhood. His lawyer, Bobbie C. Sternheim, had asked the judge to impose a 30-year sentence, the minimum.
Ms. Sternheim noted that her client had willingly spoken to the F.B.I., had owned up to his mistakes and had not engaged in violence when he returned to Britain. She added, “We should be hopeful that people who make mistakes can reform.”
Judge Nathan, before imposing the sentence, noted that Mr. Pham, in his letter, said he had renounced terrorism and extreme ideology. “I don’t know whether these statements represent Mr. Pham’s true beliefs,” the judge said. “I hope that they do.”
************************************************
Please note the following letter to the editor of mine:
How can you get a 40 year sentence for something you did not do? Where is the justice in that?
Didn’t Jesus preach forgiveness for those who repent?
Should our legal system not make a distinction between committing a crime and planning one? If punishment is merited in this case, how can 40 years be called for?
It is cruel and unnecessary.
— Roger W. Smith, Maspeth, NY
letter to editor, The New York Times, May 28, 2016; not published
Harriet Tubman is a heroic figure in American history who did many brave and noble things. She became, according to a Wikipedia article, “an icon of American courage and freedom.”
In April, 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a plan for Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson as the portrait on the $20 bill.
Yet, since modern day self-appointed judges have no mercy for would be terrorists, consider that Tubman helped abolitionist John Brown plan and recruit for the raid he led at Harpers Ferry.
Brown was and is a hero in the eyes of many. But, would not the raid on Harpers Ferry be considered a terrorist act by today’s standards?
In April 1858, Tubman was introduced to the abolitionist John Brown, an insurgent who advocated the use of violence to destroy slavery in the United States. Although she never advocated violence against whites, she agreed with his course of direct action and supported his goals. …
This would be enough to convict Tubman, it would seem, and perhaps sentence her to 40 years if the same standards were applied to her as to Minh Quang Pham, the Vietnam born British citizen who has just been sentenced to that many years for agreeing to participate in, and participating in the planning of, a suicide bombing that he never carried out.
To continue, from Wikipedia:
… as he began recruiting supporters for an attack on slaveholders, Brown was joined by “General Tubman”, as he called her. Her knowledge of support networks and resources in the border states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware was invaluable to Brown and his planners. Although other abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison did not endorse his tactics, Brown dreamed of fighting to create a new state for freed slaves, and made preparations for military action. After he began the first battle, he believed, slaves would rise up and carry out a rebellion across the south. He asked Tubman to gather former slaves then living in present-day Southern Ontario who might be willing to join his fighting force, which she did.
On May 8, 1858, Brown held a meeting in Chatham-Kent, Ontario, where he unveiled his plan for a raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia. When word of the plan was leaked to the government, Brown put the scheme on hold and began raising funds for its eventual resumption. Tubman aided him in this effort, and with more detailed plans for the assault.
Tubman was busy during this time, giving talks to abolitionist audiences and tending to her relatives. In the autumn of 1859, as Brown and his men prepared to launch the attack, Tubman could not be contacted. When the raid on Harpers Ferry took place on October 16, Tubman was not present. Some historians believe she was in New York at the time, ill with fever related to her childhood head injury. Others propose she may have been recruiting more escaped slaves in Ontario, and Kate Clifford Larson suggests she may have been in Maryland, recruiting for Brown’s raid or attempting to rescue more family members [Kate Clifford Larson, Bound For the Promised Land: Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero. New York: Ballantine Books, 2004]. Larson also notes that Tubman may have begun sharing Frederick Douglass’s doubts about the viability of the plan.
The raid failed; Brown was convicted of treason and hanged in December. His actions were seen by abolitionists as a symbol of proud resistance, carried out by a noble martyr. Tubman herself was effusive with praise. She later told a friend: “[H]e done more in dying, than 100 men would in living.”
Why are Tubman’s actions in this respect totally forgotten and ignored? It seems that they should matter to the self-appointed judges who want to lock up Minh Quang Pham and throw away the key.
But, then, it’s not politically to correct criticize Harriet Tubman, a modern day saint — a black woman, no less — who is about to be honored by being pictured on a twenty dollar bill.
Pete Smith: “As in the article, the rationale for the sentence is very clear — this was a committed terrorist; there is no way to assume his apology was genuine; his training and link to Al Qaeda were proven. The minimum sentence was 30 years. I would have given him 50. In any event, it is good to know that when I’m flying overseas in the future, this bad ass will be in jail.”
response by Roger W. Smith: “In my opinion, this was a vituperative, mean spirited, and crude response that is hard to comprehend. It shows what one is up against in trying to be humane. This is an individual who is Christian on the surface only, someone who cannot see the issues ‘beyond his own nose’ (e.g., his safety on his next airplane trip).”
another relative’s response:
“Roger, thanks for sending the relevant articles from the Times. After reading all of them, I am inclined to side with the New York judge who thought that Pham’s claims of reform and renunciation of terrorism were rather disingenuous. His admitted admiration for Anwar al-Awlaki, his enthusiasm for and participation in Al Qaeda’s activities in Yemen and his avowed willingness to “martyr” himself in order to kill Americans and Israelis at Heathrow are more believable than his later claims that he said all that just to get out of Yemen and return to his family, which he had previously abandoned. He was, after all, a mature and educated adult, not some adolescent or post-adolescent who went off the track briefly and then realized his mistake.
“This is an example, among many others, of why I am essentially non-religious. I consider established religion to be one of the most divisive, most antagonistic influences in human affairs and history.”
— McLaren Harris, May 29, 2016
Roger W. Smith:
I appreciate the response and your thoughts.
I think young people can do very stupid things, then change and regret them.
I did some stupid, wrong things in my late teens and twenties that I would refrain from now.
Pham did engage in planning a suicide bombing, but he didn’t carry it out. In view of this, I think a 40 year sentence is way excessive.
You apparently noticed my remark about Jesus preaching forgiveness.
Hardly anyone practices true Christianity today.
I regard myself as a Christian and appreciate the religious upbringing and training I had. I respect religious people. But I am not religious and do not observe or practice religion.
