![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osewalrusIn law school, the first question posed to my class was "what is the purpose of criminal law?" Is it retribution (i.e., "punish the wicked")? Utilitarian (i.e., do what is necessary to protect society as a whole)? Rehabilitative (i.e., try to reform the person who committed the crime into a law abiding person)? Some combination thereof? Most folks like this last option, but even then the question is what predominates as a matter of policy?
We have something of a parallel question that comes up in politics and life generally. We know someone did something wrong in the past -- sometimes the distant past. But since then they have become a changed person. They have put all that behind them and lived a decent, sometimes even exemplary, life. Do we believe in repentance and treat this person based on their "new" self? Or do we believe that "the leopard cannot change its spots" and that always lurking underneath is villain? Or, even if we think the person has genuinely changed, is there an obligation to punish? But if so, how much and how long? Forever? At what point has a person 'paid for his/her mistake?'
Such is the interesting case of Archie Parnell, Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in the 5th District of South Carolina.
Parnell is a former Tax attorney for DoJ and also worked on the House Ways and Means committee. He left to have a fairly successful career in the private sector and then retired. In 2017, he decided to run in the special election to replace Rep. Mulvaney (appointed by Trump to head OMB). He surprised everyone by being an excellent candidate and losing by a fairly small margin -- only 3% -- in the solidly Republican district. not surprisingly, he announced his intention to run again in the general election of 2018.
In May, the Sumter Post and Courier ran an article disclosing that, according to divorce papers filed in 1973, Archie Parnell's wife, Kathleen, sued for divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty and obtained a restraining order against Archie Parnell. At the time, Archie was a college student at the University of South Carolina. According to the divorce papers, Archie accused Kathleen of being unfaithful. Drunk, he pursued her to the house of some friends, who locked him out. He broke into the house with a tire iron, then proceeded to strike Kathleen multiple times (apparently with his fists, not the tire iron) and then apparently beat her again later that night. she then filed for divorce, which was granted.
This incident occurred 45 years ago. Parnell does not deny the incident. Confronted with the divorce papers, he has since made a public statement: "Forty five years ago, while still a college student, I did something that I have regretted every single day since. In response to actions I feel unnecessary to specify, I lashed out and became violent with other people, including my former wife, which led to a divorce and monumental change in my life.
And so, here is the question. What do we make of this incident from 45 years ago? Is it different than if he had been a drug user? A drug dealer? Some other crime or deplorable action? Do we believe his declaration of repentance? Even if we do believe it, is it enough? Is there anything that would be enough, or his he forever tainted?
This is the kind of question that delights law school classes when presented as a hypothetical. It is somewhat less comfortable when presented in real life.
We have something of a parallel question that comes up in politics and life generally. We know someone did something wrong in the past -- sometimes the distant past. But since then they have become a changed person. They have put all that behind them and lived a decent, sometimes even exemplary, life. Do we believe in repentance and treat this person based on their "new" self? Or do we believe that "the leopard cannot change its spots" and that always lurking underneath is villain? Or, even if we think the person has genuinely changed, is there an obligation to punish? But if so, how much and how long? Forever? At what point has a person 'paid for his/her mistake?'
Such is the interesting case of Archie Parnell, Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in the 5th District of South Carolina.
Parnell is a former Tax attorney for DoJ and also worked on the House Ways and Means committee. He left to have a fairly successful career in the private sector and then retired. In 2017, he decided to run in the special election to replace Rep. Mulvaney (appointed by Trump to head OMB). He surprised everyone by being an excellent candidate and losing by a fairly small margin -- only 3% -- in the solidly Republican district. not surprisingly, he announced his intention to run again in the general election of 2018.
In May, the Sumter Post and Courier ran an article disclosing that, according to divorce papers filed in 1973, Archie Parnell's wife, Kathleen, sued for divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty and obtained a restraining order against Archie Parnell. At the time, Archie was a college student at the University of South Carolina. According to the divorce papers, Archie accused Kathleen of being unfaithful. Drunk, he pursued her to the house of some friends, who locked him out. He broke into the house with a tire iron, then proceeded to strike Kathleen multiple times (apparently with his fists, not the tire iron) and then apparently beat her again later that night. she then filed for divorce, which was granted.
This incident occurred 45 years ago. Parnell does not deny the incident. Confronted with the divorce papers, he has since made a public statement: "Forty five years ago, while still a college student, I did something that I have regretted every single day since. In response to actions I feel unnecessary to specify, I lashed out and became violent with other people, including my former wife, which led to a divorce and monumental change in my life.
"These actions were inexcusable, wrong and downright embarrassing," Parnell said. "Since then, my life has been changed by a remarkable woman, two amazing daughters, a forgiving God and a career that has taught me to cherish what I have.""
There is no indication that Archie Parnell was ever subject to criminal prosecution for the event. There is no evidence that there has ever been, before or since, any sort of domestic abuse (or other violence) committed by Archie Parnell. Parnell won the Democratic primary with 60% of the vote, despite widespread calls from the South Carolina Democratic Party and previous endorsers to withdraw.And so, here is the question. What do we make of this incident from 45 years ago? Is it different than if he had been a drug user? A drug dealer? Some other crime or deplorable action? Do we believe his declaration of repentance? Even if we do believe it, is it enough? Is there anything that would be enough, or his he forever tainted?
This is the kind of question that delights law school classes when presented as a hypothetical. It is somewhat less comfortable when presented in real life.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-15 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-06-15 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-06-15 02:20 am (UTC)I am not happy with the deed he did. It was, by any definition, a criminal act that was meant to terrorize and harm his now-ex-wife,
At the same time, while we should not ignore or excuse his criminal ation, we likewise should not ignore or wipe away his life since that one act.
He has accepted responsibility for the action, has not shown a pattern of repeating the action, and has used the action to inform him on matters of justice, right and wrong since then.
He has shown himself as non-habitual in this, he has shown that he has worked to make amends, and he has accepted resposibility. I would not blame anybody for being wary based on the crime, but his life and work since then suggests no serious likelihood of recidivism.
For me, the questions have to do with the victims, the behavioral patterns, the damage inflicted in terms of scale and severity, and the lives since then.
I have no actual quarrel with drug users because simple use, while potentially dangerous to the self, is not an issue to the wider society. Complications are another story, but I consider it on a level with alcohol.
Drug dealing is another story, but there it still depends on how they treated their clients. For example, if they used poison to cut their drugs, that’s a hard limit. That is deliberate infliction of harm.
We all judge what actions are deplorable through our own lenses, so I cannot speak for others; but for me it depends greatly on sustained patterns of societal damage. For me, without that sustained pattern, any person who did a one-off aberration or minimal pattern of damage that can otherwise be made whole should be given a chance based on their behavior since then based on a counter-pattern of sustained remorse and restoration.
If all of us blamed everyone else forever for their wrongs, none of us could ever be trusted. We need some method of forgiveness or we will be forever mired in the mistakes and sins of the past.
That’s my two cents based on a single reading. Hat tip to my wife for the post-pointer.