Posted on 03/10/2006 10:24:43 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
It had been gnawing away at him for years, especially after the Wisconsin Legislature passed the "truth in sentencing" law in 2000.
"I became concerned about the legal system's obsession with fairness, which is very different from justice," Jerry Hancock, a former attorney in the Dane County District Attorney's Office, noted during an interview at a west side coffee shop this week. "I mean, people can get a fair trial. But the results may be unjust."
Fairness, he adds, "is very important. But a system that ends up with more than half the inmates being African-American and Hispanic is not just. And I wanted to deal with those issues from a whole different perspective."
So in 2001, Hancock, who had spent three decades in the criminal justice system, pointed his life in a new direction. With the encouragement of his wife Linda, he started taking classes at Chicago Theological Seminary so that he could become a minister and provide spiritual guidance for prisoners and their families, as well as for victims of violent crime.
And don't misunderstand, says the engaging 58-year-old Hancock, whose first day as a minister at First Congregational United Church of Christ, 1609 University Ave., was Feb. 1. He's not suggesting that hardcore criminals don't deserve to be behind bars. Heck, in his previous career he put a lot of them there.
"But they don't need to be forgotten in prison," he says. "They don't need to be in there for as long as they are under truth in sentencing, which is a perfect storm of injustice that just creates hopelessness."
Truth in sentencing, Hancock notes, eliminated parole and early release for inmates. As a result, "there's no incentive for them to change, there's no recognition of even the possibility of human transformation."
And that, Hancock asserts, "is evil."
But that's not the only problem with the longer sentences that have resulted from truth in sentencing, he contends.
It's a big reason why, even though crime rates have been falling for 17 years, Wisconsin's prisons are now operating at 120 percent capacity, Hancock says. And why the prison system continues to be an enormous drain on taxpayers.
As defense attorney Steve Hurley pointed out in a recent speech to the Dane County Bar Association, it now costs an average of $25,000 a year to keep an inmate in Wisconsin's prisons, Hancock says. Which means there's little money left over for schools and health care and other social needs.
Of course, the hard-liners would argue that tougher and longer sentences are a key reason the crime rate has plummeted.
Balderdash, says Hancock.
Minnesota, he points out, has a crime rate comparable to Wisconsin's. Yet it incarcerates roughly one-fourth as many people as Wisconsin does, and it spends about one-fourth as much money on prisons.
"So obviously there are other ways of controlling crime than simply locking everybody up," he says.
In his speech to the Dane County Bar, Hurley suggested that the system won't change until judges "face the facts" and think about the consequences of the sentences they're handing out.
"That would be great," Hancock says. "But the ultimate solution is to change the law and bring back good-time credits and early release so that prisoners have some incentives" to improve.
"Now, that would also involve a shift in resources," he says. "You'd need more probation officers, more bracelets, more monitoring. You'd need more re-entry programs and you'd need jobs for people.
"So it's a complicated business. But the fundamental fact is that the system as it works now is unjust."
Hancock, who lives on the near west side, in the same house that he and his wife purchased in 1973, says he won't be surprised if the right-wingers who dominate the Legislature scoff at his remarks or suggest that his brain's gone soft.
Not so, he says with a laugh.
"I know - perhaps better than most - that a lot of people in prison need to be there. But they don't need to be forgotten. Their families don't need to be punished.
"And we have a responsibility to make sure they're better human beings when they come out than when they went in."
"Yes, oto bad their church-going fails to translate into Bible-reading. If so, they wouldn't be left."
I've never met Christian who didn't read and/or interpret the bible selectively.
In my case I give more emphasis to the words of Jesus.
Why does every liberal get that statistic exactly backwards? Crime rates are falling because the big-time, multiple-felony-record criminals are largely behind bars now.
No, false forms of Christianity are incompatible with conservative goverment.
With Real Christianity (Roman Catholic Catechism, I'm Catholic, so sue me.):
1) Life imprisonment is completely okey-dokey.
2) If he's REALLY bad and you know for an absolute fact he's guilty (Osama Bin Ladin, Beltway Snipers, etc.)
a) Pray for him.
b) Tie him into 'Old Sparky'
c) Forgive him.
d) Pull the switch
e) Pray for the dearly departed.
The cost of incarceration is high, yes, but there is a price to be paid for not incarcerating people who need to be incarcerated, and the people who pay that price are most often the poor. The poor are disproportionately the victimes of crime.
The rich can insulate themselves, in their exclusive neighborhoods, gated communities, and with their expensive alarms systems. The poor have to count on the state to fund the aggressive law enforcement and long prison sentences that help keep them safe.
When prison sentences lengthen, human suffering is reduced.
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but the Church seems to.
Uhhh...
"African-Americans" are 12% of the U.S. population, but commit more than 50% of the murders.
Case closed.
Nope.
I do not personally believe, but respect those who sincerely do.
Um, no that's what I said. I just believe that OBL and the Beltway snipers fall into the rare cases where it is necessary.
Roman governors did not convert to Christianity until after they resigned from their office, because it was part of their official duty to sign death warrants. Government was considered incompatible with Christian belief during the pre-Constantine period.
The Catholic Church is supposed to be based on historic precendent, but that's what the Pope taught in the 2nd century AD.
Or you can abandon modern American theology and return to the teachings of earlier theologians.
1) That isn't what it says today.
2) The infallibility of the pope only applies to ex-cathedra statements. Besides, I'd find it rather surprising to have a Roman Governor publically convert to Christianity in the 2nd Century AD.
3) Christ ordered his apostles to carry swords. I doubt they were for decoration. The early Popes were certainly aware of this fact.
Lots of churchgoers are politically liberal. It's not the same thing.
"[Truth-in-sentencing] is a big reason why, even though crime rates have been falling for 17 years, Wisconsin's prisons are now operating at 120 percent capacity, Hancock says."
I don't like mandatory minimums for non-violent crime, but this statement is backasswards. It should read:
Because Wisconsin's prisons have been operating at 120 percent capacity, crime rates have been falling for 17 years.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you lock up criminals you'll get less crime. The really bad thing in my opinion is that a lot of truly non-violent offenders have gotten swept up in mandatory minimums. Draconian punishments should be reserved for violent crimes, not victimless crimes.
"Lots of churchgoers are politically liberal. It's not the same thing."
We never really know one another's hearts...
but the requirements to be a Christian are to accept him the savior and to ask forgiveness in his name - there is no political litmus test.
Well, if you are familiar with the theological chaos of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you could probably find justification for just about any postion. But the general tenor would be considered sweepingly radical by today's standards, except for the truly far-out evangelicals.
I did kind of like Tertullian's postition on earrings and tattoos, however.
Right away, we know he's an idiot ... the prison population should reflect the criminal population.
(Excerpt):
But sponsors of some area Boy Scout troops and packs, and parents of the boys participating in them, are going on record against the ban on participation by homosexuals.The First Congregational Church, also a United Church of Christ, is considering surrendering its sponsorship of a Boy Scout troop after 80 years to protest the organization's ban."We are very concerned," Jerry Hancock of the church's board of directors said of the Boy Scouts' policy. As a congregation consciously dedicated to welcoming gay and lesbian members, congregants felt "an obligation to be very explicit and public that we are proud to be that kind of church and that other institutions should be open to all people as well," Hancock said.
"Why does every liberal get that statistic exactly backwards?"
I'm guessing....stupidity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.