This is truly amazing, because the usual pattern in government is for gross incompetence to be punished by, at most, slower promotion. It says good things about Florida.
In contrast is a recent story from Canada that I have mislaid, about a murderer who walked away from the halfway house where he was living and then robbed and killed someone. The authorities did not even announce that he had left, and even after the murder they explained that to release news of he criminal's escape to the community would have violated his privacy.
Yet another story is from the August 5 Vancouver Sun. A man who committed a brutal murder in 198 in British Columbia, stabbing a woman 99 times and almost cutting her head off, is up for release on parole. His sentence was to "life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 25 years". Those 25 years expire in 2008, at which time a parole board can release him.
What is interesting, though, is that even now he can get out of prison-- and without a parole board hearing. After December 11, 2005, "escorted passes will up to the discretion of the prison warden. No parole board hearing will be necessary." He will also be eligible for "unescorted temporary absences" if the National Parole Board agrees. And even now, in 2004, he is eligible for "escorted passes" if the National Parole Board agrees. This is in the news because that board just had a hearing on him, in which 28 of his supporters, including "prison psychiatric experts" have testified. He apparently now is openly homosexual and has HIV and hepatitis. It wasn't clear whether these things were being disclosed by his supporters or his opponents.
The lesson: "life in prison without parole" means "stay in prison until the parole board feels like letting you out". The death penalty is the only sure way to guarantee that someone is punished for longer than the public eye is on the case.
Former MP Svend Robinson yesterday admitted in court that he stole an expensive
diamond ring during a time of "devastating stress," but the judge ruled that
losing his long-time job and suffering "public vilification" were punishment
enough. The judge handed him a conditional discharge, meaning Mr. Robinson will
not have a criminal record or serve any jail time.
"The end result is that Mr. Robinson needs help. He's fallen a long way. He has
embarrassed himself. Further, he is always going to be remembered for this. This
is not going to go away. As I say, the public, at least in Canada, I think, has
always lived by the guiding principle: You don't kick somebody when they're
down. Mr. Robinson is down."
...
Before he was sentenced, Mr. Robinson made a short statement to the court in
which he said the ordeal has been a "shattering experience," that he recognizes
the seriousness of his offence, and that it was "devastating" for him not to
seek a seventh-straight seat in June's federal election.
"I feel a deep sense of remorse and shame for my totally unthinkable actions. I
want to tell your honour that this isn't who I am and I am taking every possible
step to ensure that this terrible mistake is never repeated."
A joint statement of facts admitted by the Crown and defence said Mr. Robinson
was suffering from an unspecified strain when he stole a ring, valued by the
Federal Auction Service at $64,500, from a jewelry auction in Richmond, B.C., on
Good Friday, April 9.
...
Special prosecutor Len Doust suggested the value of the ring, Mr. Robinson's
unusual behaviour at the auction after the theft, and his four-day delay in
reporting the crime to police should culminate in a conviction. Mr. Robinson's
detractors, Mr. Doust said, would say he was nothing more than a "common thief"
who had earlier been shopping for a diamond ring for his partner, Max Riveron.
... probation for one year, and ordered him to attend psychological counselling
and perform 100 hours of community service.
Mr. Ruby submitted 21 letters of support to the court, some of them written by
Mr. Robinson's political opponents. The authors included Conservative deputy
leader Peter MacKay, Liberal MP and Cabinet minister Stephen Owen.
A later op-ed tells us more about Robinson. In my words:
1. He was a leading MP in the leftwing NDP party.
2. He demanded an end to "Iraqi genocide" in 1999-- attacking not Saddam, but
the UN sanctions against him.
3. In April 2002, he went to the Middle East to express his solidarity with
Yassir Arafat, which resulted in his being dumped as NDP foreign affairs critic.
4. He said, "If we are to keep our country sovereign, we must vigorously resist
any further American economic, military, or social domination in Canada."
5. He is homosexual.
6. He told the police about stealing the $64,000 ring four days after stealing
it. I couldn't find out whether the police were already on his trail or not--
something which seems to me crucial in deciding whether his release without a
conviction was just. My guess is that they were on his trail, though. I find it
hard to believe that if a customer came back to a jeweller and gave back a ring,
saying he had slipped it into his pocket by mistake, that the jeweller would
initiate a prosecution.
The deterrence factor isn't terribly relevant because potential criminals are
hardly likely to identify with Mr. Robinson who is in a unique situation, eing a
veteran politician and international crusader for causes.
Prominent leftwing politicians may each steal one item of up to $64,000 in
value without being punished. They may, in fact, steal an unlimited number and
keep the items if they are clever enough not to get caught, but if they are
caught, they must return the item, and are in peril of some punishment such as
probation or a fine if they are caught again.
And, I think now, my description of Yaffe's "One Free Grand Larceny" policy
actually overstates its severity. Recall that Robinson "will not have a criminal
record". If that means anything, it means that if he steals a second time, he
cannot legally be sentenced as a two-time offender. The court, I would think,
will be obliged to close its eyes to the first offense, as having been deleted
from his record, and treat him as a first-time offender. He then will be able to
make the same arguments as he did this time, and if he faces the same judge, he
will again escape punishment or a criminal record. So what this really amounts
to is an exemption from the criminal law. The only penalty for theft for a
politician is that the voters may choose not to re-elect him (and the victim
will be able to get back the takings, via civil suits).
In my brief stay in Canada, I've noticed a fear of crime that I haven't seen
living in Bloomington, Indiana, or even during my one year in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. There are lots of police cars around; gated communities; even
more crime in the newspapers and on TV than in America; lunch discussions of
the
everyone's car-theft experiences; the "bait car" posters that I posted on
earlier; talk of the influence of the Hell's Angels and the huge magnitude of
the drug trade; checkout clerks checking credit card signatures more
suspiciously. I don't know if crime is higher in Canada than in the U.S., but
I do sense that fear of crime is higher. Is this due to lack of punishment?
August 16, 2004
M.P. Svend Robinson's Diamond Theft; Crime in Canada
From the National Post, August 7, 2004.
The judge said,
Barbara Yaffe, [email protected], had more to say in an August 14 op-ed in
the Vancouver Sun.
She said
But how would society have benefited from putting Mr. Robinson behind bars? He's
unlikely to re-offend. The public isn't at risk.
I hope Yaffe would change her mind if she thought about the implications of the
policy she is proposing. Here it is, in my words:
The rational response of politicians would be for each of them to steal as many
$64,000 items as they can up to the first time they get caught, and then,
perhaps, to stop. Yaffee seems to think that it is working-class stiffs who
need the law to deter them from grand larceny. It is odd that after the events
of the previous year any Canadian would not realize that it is the prominent
liberal politicians, not the average voter, whose moral principles are weak
enough that they need the threat of jail to stop them from stealing.