Has the concept of paying one’s debt to society gone the way of the dodo?
As the Herald reported, the Massachusetts Parole Board freed 23 killers and rapists in December. They weren’t exonerated by newfound evidence, DNA results or recanted testimony establishing innocence. They did the crimes, but they didn’t have to complete the time.
The premise for many releases was the Supreme Judicial Court’s “Mattis” decision last year which ruled that “emerging adults” (18 through 20 years old) could not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The opinion was based on “updated research on the brains of emerging adults,” which has “confirmed what many know well through experience: the brains of emerging adults are not fully mature.”
“Emerging adults” are, however, allowed to vote. How are such “emerging” brains mature enough to choose who should hold the highest office in the land, yet not mature enough to merit the full consequences of taking a life?
The crimes committed by some of these parolees speak of brutality, lives lost and shattered families looking for justice.
Victor Bruce, for example, shot his older lover through a door in a jealous rage in 1999, when he was 18 and she was 35. This “Mattis” candidate had parole “granted” to a long-term residential program after a six-month “step down.” The victim’s daughter, brother and the Middlesex DA’s office objected.
Anthony Dawley tied his pregnant ex-girlfriend up with an extension cord and strangled her to death in 1981. The now 67-year-old has “gained insight into his role in unhealthy relationships and patterns of abuse,” the board wrote.
Timothy Dubuc killed his girlfriend in 2004. His parole was “granted” after he “demonstrated a level of rehabilitation that would make his release compatible with the welfare of society,” the board wrote.
Eduardo Pena was paroled to a long-term program after six months in lower security after killing a man and shooting another in 2009 after a “fight broke out outside a Lowell nightclub.” The board noted his “strong faith” was a factor in his parole.
Rehabilitation is an important part of the judicial system — for non-violent crimes. Turning lives around so that the incarcerated won’t re-offend and contribute to society is a worthy goal.
But cases of rape and murder which cause tremendous suffering to victims in their last moments of life, horrible acts which their loved ones can’t forget, they are why life sentences were created.
It’s not enough to “gain insight” into patterns of abuse, it’s not enough that a murderer is determined at a negligible risk to kill again, or even if a killer has found God in prison. None of that negates the crime that was committed, nor the debt to society that must be paid.
Imagine the family of a murder victim discovering their loved one’s killer has been released because they’re “rehabilitated” enough to not kill again. A life has still been taken. Rehabilitation doesn’t bring them back.
In a society that too often affords more rights to criminals than it does to victims and their families, the concept of crime and punishment has been replaced with “crime and some punishment until you’re really sorry.”
Life can’t be that cheap.
