JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG

WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.

Saturday, March 04, 2023

GULAG AMERICA

 Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison Friday for the murder of his wife and son, ostensibly done to re-direct scrutiny from his financial crimes. Putting aside for the moment the weakness of the motive, the crime, if true, is heinous. 

But do all first-degree murders deserve life in prison? 

One of the great tragedies in criminal justice in the country in the last fifty years are the number of people serving life in prison for felony murder. The driver of the car during a convenience store robbery gone bad, or the unknowing accomplice to a break-in when the co-defendant pulls a gun the accomplice never knew she had, and shoots someone. Most of these people were part of a felony when they were young, they never killed anyone, and yet they are wasting away in prison. 

Which brings us to Pamela Smart. Before there was the OJ case, there was the Pamela Smart case in 1990. Smart was a schoolteacher having an affair with a fifteen-year-old student- Billy Flynn, who broke into her house and killed her husband. Flynn, the killer, is free. Smart, is serving a life sentence issued by the State of New Hampshire, who transferred her thirty years ago to the infamous maximum security women's prison in Bedford Hills, NY. 

While in prison, Smart has become an ordained minister. She lives on an honors floor for inmates who have earned it. She has mentored generations of young women inmates who have done their time and been released. And still, at age 55, she serves her daily death-in-prison-sentence for a crime an immature 22-year-old woman committed. 

The simple question is whether we as a society believe in redemption? If we believe in the human spirit, and redemption and change, then people like Pamela Smart should have the chance to be released. If we believe in vengeance and retribution, then let's just affirm that what we are running is Gulag America. 

There are signs this is so. Florida doesn't distinguish between first- and second-degree murder in many cases, mandating life for both. Florida is now seeking to expand the death penalty to include non-homicide crimes, which sits just fine with the diminishing legion of Miami-Dade prosecutors, seemingly hired only for their ability to mindlessly intone "victim wants max." 

True story: we walked into court this week and saw a female ASA, during a sounding, robotically intoning, over and over, "the victim authorized plea is..." usually followed by a high prison sentence. Proseutors have become a ChatGPT bot, serving only as a conduit between complaining witnesses and the court. But we digress. 

Here is the NY Times article on Smart. 

We love to talk about having the greatest justice system on earth. But beyond the massive wrongful conviction problems we have, our justice system doesn't allow for the redemption of the human spirit. Once wrong, always punished. No room for change. 

Let he who has not sinned, impose the life sentence. 

Here's the penultimate paragraph of the Smart article:

She called the requirements for clemency a conundrum.

“They’re trying to box me into confessing a crime I didn’t commit,” she said. “So if I say I’m a coldhearted killer, you’re going to let me out, but if I say I’m rehabilitated, you won’t let me out?”


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh oh oh Ozempic! Oh Rump half the building is on it including several wide load judges and a whole lotta chunky monkey lawyers who all of the sudden are just nibbling a cracker at lunch and feeling stuffed.
This is post worthy. We gonna have a whole lot more room on the escalators and elevators shortly as this sh&t works word.

Anonymous said...

"But do all first-degree murders deserve life in prison?"

Yes.

"The simple question is whether we as a society believe in redemption?"

No.

Anonymous said...

There is something about felony murder that is unconstitutional. You can be convicted of a crime that you never wanted to commit only because of bad luck. Sort of strict liability for murder. But this gross unfairness pales in comparison to the disparity accorded snitches.

Anonymous said...

Part of what we punish people for is the consequence of their crimes. That is supposed to be accounted for in the range of sentences available for a crime. So a punch that barely grazes the target should get less jail time than a K.O. Felony murder was a hooey doctrine from the beginning. It covers up cases where there is no evidence that the defendant intended to kill anyone, or all the evidence shows he clearly didn't.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and sometimes the law saws "consequences" of a crime can be punished even if the person did not intend those consequences. Not all crimes and punishments require intent from the perpetrator. Some crimes are strict liability offenses, like statutory rape. It will not matter if the defendant never intended to sleep with an underage person, if he did not know the person was underage, or even if he genuinely believed the person was of legal age. So long as they did things with an underage person, they are guilty, intent or not.

With felony murder and similar theories, the law says once somebody decides to engage in criminal activity, they can be held fully liable for all escalations and consequences of that crime, even if they never intended those consequences or for their crime to reach that level. If a bunch of guys decide to rob 7-11, but then one of them freaks out and shoots the clerk, they can all be charged with murder, even the ones who never held a gun. If two guys decide to rob a house, but then one of them decides to rape and murder the entire family, they can both be charged the same, even if the other guy participated in the rapes or murders and never intended such. "I didn't mean to murder them, I only meant to rob them" is not a defense.

Why not ask the dearly departed William Van Poyck? He and a friend tried to break somebody out of prison. But when they ambushed the guards, Van Poyck's buddy decided to shoot and kill one of them. Even though Van Poyck did not shoot anybody during that botched prison break, he was still convicted of murder. Van Poyck argued for years "I didn't actually kill anybody! I just wanted to break my friend out of prison!" He kept saying so up to the day of his execution.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/crime/2013/06/15/prison-guard-killer-william-van/7087260007/