Paul McCuskey is currently serving a minimum three-year sentence in a Victorian prison for a brutal assault on his then-wife, causing her to miscarry and lose sight in one eye. While the case was working its way through the courts, McCuskey, who is a volunteer firefighter, rescued an elderly woman from a burning house during the fatal Black Saturday bushfires. Last year, the Royal Humane Society gave him a bravery award.
Following a campaign led by his ex-wife and victim, Jeannine Blackburn, he was last month stripped of his award.
To me, this doesn't make all that much sense. The incidents are unrelated - I don't see why he should lose the bravery award for his crime any more than he should escape punishment for his crime for his act on Black Saturday. I cannot see how this will aid his re-habilitation, given that he will eventually be out of prison and back in society.
I seem to be in the minority on this, however, as the petition to strip him of the award attracted 18,000 signatures. I wonder if I am really alone in this.
An award for a criminal?
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
I see at least two unsettled questions here. First, to what extent are we as a society comfortable with allowing someone who has committed a serious, violent felony to eventually move on from that crime - not only through eventual release from prison, but with full reintegration into society as a not just accepted, but honored member. Second, if the answer is that we are comfortable with the first, are we comfortable with that occurring before the felon has paid his debt to society at all, as occurred here - McCuskey was apparently honored before he even began serving his sentence.
As to the first: it seems to me that for all crimes that are not designated as worthy of a life without parole sentence (which even includes some murders which receive lesser sentences), society must permit some degree of reintegration sufficient to allow the person to lead a law-abiding life once released (which means they must be permitted to earn an income and to have some place to live). As for honoring such individuals, there are arguments on both sides. The argument against includes the potential for traumatization and pain to the victim(s) (or their survivors, in the case of a murder), who may have suffered continuing injuries from which they can never fully move on (such as a miscarriage or a permanent loss of sight in one eye.) The argument for includes both societal forgiveness and offering former offenders an incentive to achieve at the highest levels of which they are capable. (whether here, as in bravery, or in the more common contexts of education, writing books, working with at-risk populations, etc.) If we adopt rules or conventions that exclude former offenders from fully participating in and benefiting from all that society has to offer - including receiving awards for their achievements - we may as a society actually be depriving ourselves of the most they have to offer. A significant loss where, as here, what they have to offer includes saving a vulnerable person from a burning building.
As you can tell, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of full-reintegration following incarceration for crimes not warranting a life sentence - but I respect the position of the victims' rights advocates who feel otherwise. However, I am less sympathetic to this "reintegration" occurring before the felon has been punished for his crimes. I don't think it is as simple as the two acts being unrelated, such that a person can be honored and punished almost simultaneously for each act. I think his first act - the assault - was a very serious violation of the social contract which required his removal from society for a period of time. I think that until he had paid his debt to society, he should have been ineligible for any honors, regardless of what good deeds he managed to do in the meantime. I think that this rule also balances between the competing interests I described above: it says that we will ultimately permit those who have committed serious crimes to reintegrate into society and receive awards, but - both in recognition of the pain to their victims this may cause and the societal harm they've caused - we will not permit this until after they have served their time. In allowing for the passage of time, this allows their victims to start to heal as well, rather than honoring perpetrators right when the victims' wounds are still fresh.
A final point: the previous paragraph might change for me if McCuskey had been charged but not convicted at the time he was given this award. I think it is permissible to honor someone accused of a serious crime while the presumption of innocence applies; after all, if they were ultimately to be found innocent, it would be a shame if they were deprived of an award they had otherwise merited in the meantime. But here, I think award-givinng bodies should use their common sense and consider how much evidence exists against the accused (e.g., perhaps honoring a charged individual linked to a multiple murder by ten eyewitness nuns, solid DNA evidence, a confession, and significant additional circumstantial evidence isn't the best career move.
)
As to the first: it seems to me that for all crimes that are not designated as worthy of a life without parole sentence (which even includes some murders which receive lesser sentences), society must permit some degree of reintegration sufficient to allow the person to lead a law-abiding life once released (which means they must be permitted to earn an income and to have some place to live). As for honoring such individuals, there are arguments on both sides. The argument against includes the potential for traumatization and pain to the victim(s) (or their survivors, in the case of a murder), who may have suffered continuing injuries from which they can never fully move on (such as a miscarriage or a permanent loss of sight in one eye.) The argument for includes both societal forgiveness and offering former offenders an incentive to achieve at the highest levels of which they are capable. (whether here, as in bravery, or in the more common contexts of education, writing books, working with at-risk populations, etc.) If we adopt rules or conventions that exclude former offenders from fully participating in and benefiting from all that society has to offer - including receiving awards for their achievements - we may as a society actually be depriving ourselves of the most they have to offer. A significant loss where, as here, what they have to offer includes saving a vulnerable person from a burning building.
As you can tell, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of full-reintegration following incarceration for crimes not warranting a life sentence - but I respect the position of the victims' rights advocates who feel otherwise. However, I am less sympathetic to this "reintegration" occurring before the felon has been punished for his crimes. I don't think it is as simple as the two acts being unrelated, such that a person can be honored and punished almost simultaneously for each act. I think his first act - the assault - was a very serious violation of the social contract which required his removal from society for a period of time. I think that until he had paid his debt to society, he should have been ineligible for any honors, regardless of what good deeds he managed to do in the meantime. I think that this rule also balances between the competing interests I described above: it says that we will ultimately permit those who have committed serious crimes to reintegrate into society and receive awards, but - both in recognition of the pain to their victims this may cause and the societal harm they've caused - we will not permit this until after they have served their time. In allowing for the passage of time, this allows their victims to start to heal as well, rather than honoring perpetrators right when the victims' wounds are still fresh.
A final point: the previous paragraph might change for me if McCuskey had been charged but not convicted at the time he was given this award. I think it is permissible to honor someone accused of a serious crime while the presumption of innocence applies; after all, if they were ultimately to be found innocent, it would be a shame if they were deprived of an award they had otherwise merited in the meantime. But here, I think award-givinng bodies should use their common sense and consider how much evidence exists against the accused (e.g., perhaps honoring a charged individual linked to a multiple murder by ten eyewitness nuns, solid DNA evidence, a confession, and significant additional circumstantial evidence isn't the best career move.
)I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46116
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Oh good, now I don't have to take the time to write a response to this, now that nel has said basically what I would have said had I done so!
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
