On October 29th, 20 life-sentence convicted murderers and rapists are going to be released in North Carolina thanks to some crafty legal maneuvering by one convict. By exploiting a law made in 1974 that stated that a life-sentence is the equivalent to 80 years in prison, these convicts are now being released due to good behavior and the assistance of various other merit programs, which have cut sentences by as much as half.
Now, the criminal justice is system is unfair. Many people receive sentences that are disproportionate to their crimes (drug possession comes to mind). It can ruin what few chances some people have at a life. There are many injustices in our "justice" system that really do keep certain groups of people at a disadvantage in our country today.
But. And I mean, a big BUT...
One of the convicts to be released kidnapped and raped a nine-year-old girl in 1978. That's 31 years compared to the original "80" that he was sentenced. Nineteen out of the twenty convicts to be released in just a few weeks are convicted of murder or rape. The twentieth was convicted of assault with intent to rape along with the two accounts of second-degree burglary. Woah, big difference. Also nevermind that "good behavior" also allows for multiple infractions (up to 27 on one convict's record) while in prison, including weapon possession, fighting, sexual acts, and verbal threats.
As of right now, there is nothing the state can do regarding the twenty convicts to be released on the 29th. In addition, the releases will continue unless the state can find someone legal recourse to keep life-sentence convicts in prison.
Now, according to the Constitution, ex post facto laws are prohibited in the United States. This means that a person cannot be charged for something that was not illegal when he/she committed it, make a punishment more severe to those who have already been convicted, or interfere with the sentence of an already convicted criminal. I don't want to disagree with the Constitution, so I won't. What I will disagree with is the system that allows criminals to grossly shorten their sentences for such heinous crimes as child rape and multiple murders. Ok, so we can't make the changes to the 1974 law affect these convicts. Understandable. However, why is it so easy for these convicts to get out early? When someone has 27 infractions on their record while in prison, they clearly aren't following "good behavior." Their sentence was LIFE IN PRISON. Not life-well-ok-not-really in prison. Clearly there need to be some restrictions that prevent these rapists and murderers from being able to get out before completing half of their sentence. Ex post facto has nothing to do with it.
More importantly, this decision does not take into consideration the effects it will have on the victims and the women of North Carolina. Multiple studies from multiple different groups show that if a person rapes once, they are very likely to do it again, even after rehabilitation. What that means is that a rapist's good behavior amounts to about jack shit. Now, not every rapist will repeat the act. But the majority probably will. One of those convicted of rape to be released this month did attempt to rape a second time.
Law enforcement is alerting victims to the release of these convicts on October 29th. However, that doesn't always help. And while the rapists will remain on the sex offenders list, unless you live so close to the person that they are required by law to knock on your door telling you they're moving into your neighborhood, you have to go looking for that information. It's not made readily available for those in situations that would be highly problematic. For example, I personally go to an all women's college in North Carolina and live on campus. Since I'm in a dorm, sex offenders can't really move so close to me that they have to make me aware of their presence. However, my campus is open and surrounded by neighborhoods. Unless I go looking, I'm never notified. My college does not even appear on the map for National Sex Offenders Registry, I have to go by the adjacent academy (and the nearest offender is .52 miles).
What does this mean? That women and victims of rape in North Carolina are going to be subjected to fear that could be avoided. While rape by a stranger is not the most common rape, it still happens. And what's worse is that our society exacerbates the dangers of stranger rape so that women can't walk down the street after dark. Even in pairs or in a group, the fear is still there of "What would I/we do?" if confronted. And the fear is even greater for those who were the victims of the well-behaved convicts. It becomes personal. The consequences of the crime on the victim don't go away when a person is convicted. And those consequences affect multiple, even all aspects of a person's life. But there's nothing these victims can do in order to prevent this from happening.
And what about those women who come to visit North Carolina? Those who would have practically zero chance of hearing about those rapists who have been released?
North Carolina isn't the most liberal state. It isn't the most conservative, but definitely not the most liberal. That doesn't mean that violence against women and children should be so trivialized that a person can reduce a life sentence by more than half, regardless of how long a 1974 law says a life sentence is.
One more thing that really bothers me about all this is how none of the NC legislators saw this loophole before. A double homicide convict who was originally sent to death row found this gap in the legal system (no doubt with assistance from lawyers and whatnot) and exploited it before any state legislators had a clue. No one's perfect... but to me that seems to be a pretty big loophole. It's not a loophole in the law, that has been changed. Where the loophole lies is in the merit system that can allow life sentence convicts out before life. The merit system is great for those who committed minor crimes (again, drug possession and other crimes where race and class tend to be involved as opposed to actual crime) and don't really have other options. But rape and murder are crimes that don't really seem to warrant a merit system. Especially crimes as heinous as the kidnap and rape of child. It's a little late for merit.
This calls for a serious revaluation of how seriously (or not) our
society views violence and especially violence again women. Obviously,
there are some problems. And not just in North Carolina, but America
overall. Rapists, murderers and their lawyers are paying a great deal
of attention to the US legal system everywhere, and this isn't the
first time something like this has happened. Legislators and others
involved in state and national legal systems need to take just as
serious a look at possible cracks that people can fit through.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: NC to Release Murderers and Rapists After Defining Life Sentence as 80 Years in Prison.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16719
You're going to have to explain what this means to me. Are people being let out because they turned 80 in prison or because in 1978, life = 80 years, so a lot of them could get out based on good behavior and other programs?
I'm trying to see this from different perspectives. Did these men think they were going away to prison for the rest of their lives, but still exhibited relatively good behavior? If so, it might mean something positive.
Also, a lot of people age out of criminal behavior. After 31 years, the likelihood of recidivism is much less. How old are the men who are now getting out? I'm not saying they're harmless or that they won't offend again, but that they are much less likely to now they're so much older.
I'm not making excuses for these men. They did terrible things and got a sentence that people at the time thought would keep these people off the streets forever. It's not good that they're out.
You sound really scared and angry. Just keep telling yourself that the chances of you ever encountering one of these men is very, very small. They might even leave the state. You should live your life as you normally do, being as vigilant as you normally are so that you can feel safe, and do what you actually CAN do in this situation.
What you can do:
1. Appeal to the National Sex Offenders Registry to have your campus included.
2. Keep in touch with your representatives and senators in order to keep loopholes like the one from 31 years ago closed.
3. Learn about sexual assault, recidivism rates, and programs that prisons have for prisoners to counsel them and get them ready to re-enter society. Be an activist in these areas if you find aspects that are lacking.
You sound passionate about this topic, and that's a good thing, because you can now focus that passion into doing things you find good for your state and for society.
Without incentives without the possibility of parole, prison administration would be impossible.
The only reason that prisoners obey prison rules is because if they do so, they have the possibility of being released early.
Without the carrot of parole, corrections departments would have to systematically resort to widespread violence and abuse against inmates (and not just the violent ones either - but also against the majority of prisoners who are doing time for nonviolent and/or victimless crimes).
Beyond that, what is so terrible about somebody getting parole after thirty one years in a maximum security prison???
Yes, his crime was heinous and awful - but 31 years in prison is a harsh punishment, he's more than paid his debt to society.
Also, realistically, a person who offended 31 years ago as a young man, but who comes out of prison as a man in late middle age, his spirit broken by three decades in prison and his health weakened by 31 years of inadequate prison medical care, is highly unlikely to offend.
Violent crime is a young man's game - most violent crimes are committed by teenage boys and men in their early 20's.
If those guys spend 30 years in prison - and are obedient enough to the rules that they make parole after 30 years - they are different men.
They'll come home from jail as men in their late 40's and early 50's, men who have been "institutionalized" (ground down by the system to the point where they cannot function independently).
The biggest problem society will face from these guys is the fact that they will be unable to hold a job (if they can even find a boss who'll hire a violent felon who spent 30 years in a state prison) and, unless they have a relative to take them in, they'll probably end up homeless or in the shelter system.
So why shouldn't these men get parole?
Look, in most of the world, even in Third World countries like El Salvador, inmates serving life sentences get sent home after 30 years - so why shouldn't North Carolina do the same thing?
"The only reason that prisoners obey prison rules is because if they do so, they have the possibility of being released early."
How about obeying rules to maintain their privileges like having visitors, or to avoid administrative punishments like solitary confinement or 23 hour lockdown? Even those on death row or in solitary confinement have rules they are expected to obey.
"Yes, his crime was heinous and awful - but 31 years in prison is a harsh punishment, he's more than paid his debt to society."
Perhaps victims and survivors of victims should be allowed to judge that, as they sometimes are during sentencing or parole hearings, and their feelings taken into account.
I'm wondering, if he received a life sentence of eighty years, and he can remove up to half of that sentence shouldn't he have to serve 40 years, not 31? I mean at minimum wouldn't he have 9 more to go?
Now, the criminal justice is system is unfair. Many people receive sentences that are disproportionate to their crimes (drug possession comes to mind).
Just think that if we didn't wage the drug war the way we are currently we wouldn't have jails which were so crowded. Then we could keep criminals who were a threat to society in jail for their full sentences.
This calls for a serious revaluation of how seriously (or not) our society views violence and especially violence again women.
I don't know about that. The judge gave the maximum sentence that was likely available to him, short of the death penalty. Good behavior clauses came in with most of their attention focused on far shorter term sentences. The fact that the two can work towards adverse results has caused judges in some jurisdictions to begin awarded multiple life sentences, or in addition to prosecutors efforts, to attach every crime committed in the course in a consecutive sentence which ensures the same result.
I'm a little confused. Even if you were made aware of a sex offender who lives somewhat near your school - what would you do? What would you do differently then now and how would that affect your behaviour?
I don't think there is anything you could do differently. If anything it would just make you overly paranoid when you likely don't need to be.
"I'm a little confused."
Do you have children?
"Even if you were made aware of a sex offender who lives somewhat near your school - what would you do?"
Be more mindful of my children if a known sex offender were around. Kind of like if only certain neighborhood dogs were unrestrained or prone to attack, and people are warned away.
"What would you do differently then now and how would that affect your behaviour?"
There are times and places I allow my growing children to temporarily be without supervision (e.g., play outside, or to ride their bicycles), or entrust their care to others, like when playing at a friend's house or when friends' parents take them out. I'd behave differently if I knew a neighbor were a sex offender, or a playmate's household member were a sex offender. I wouldn't allow my children with a known sex offender, even in public or with supervision. I might also behave differently with my children if someone were even accused of being a sex offender.
Again, the dog analogy. AFAIK, there are no restrictions in my community on the breed of dog that may be owned. I do not mind seeing people with pit bulls, Rottweilers, or dogs bred and trained to hunt in packs for taking game with knife or spear, which is done in my community. However, even responsible breeders will tell you there are certain breeds which should not be unsupervised with children, or not recommended for households with small children.