https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/12/nyregion/00CLARK3/00CLARK3-ma...
Looks good for an old woman. Plus dogs.
Let'er go.
Looks good for an old woman. Plus dogs.
Let'er go.
It's politics, no more, no less.
Imprisoning humans should serve a purpose. One purpose for keeping someone imprisoned until their death is that they are dangerous. Vengeance, an infantile emotion, is a poor reason to do so.
4
I don't doubt that she's significantly grown as a person and done a lot of good within the confines of her prison life, but it she had truly reformed, she would understand that she deserves to die in prison. A true rehabilitation would be accompanied by a willingness to accept this just punishment for her crimes.
On almost all topics (literally all topics, except this one?), I am as left as they come. Never do I understand more clearly why right-wingers hate us then when I read these overwrought, bleeding-heart testimonials for Judith Clark, so overflowing with sympathy for a triple murderer* and so completely bereft of any compassion for her victims or their families, friends, and communities. It's shameful.
(*Or accomplice to three murders, if you prefer -- there is no meaningful moral difference)
On almost all topics (literally all topics, except this one?), I am as left as they come. Never do I understand more clearly why right-wingers hate us then when I read these overwrought, bleeding-heart testimonials for Judith Clark, so overflowing with sympathy for a triple murderer* and so completely bereft of any compassion for her victims or their families, friends, and communities. It's shameful.
(*Or accomplice to three murders, if you prefer -- there is no meaningful moral difference)
6
The author writes that Ms. Clark didn't know who she was until behind bars. Yet, he does not offer the reader ant insight as to whom she has become. A lot is missing from this article.
7
I think it’s incredibly bizarre that a 32-year-old woman with a child willingly participated in a robbery of an armored truck to steal money that didn’t belong to her. What kind of display of morality is that –-- phony political excuses or not, theft is theft. For the robbery alone she should have served all this time. Add three, violent homicides to it and you get life in prison: period. There’s no parole for the dead. There is nothing that can fix the trauma the victims’ families suffered, either. I don’t care about Clark’s “morale awakening.” Was she morally bereft at 32? Had she been a teenager at the time of the crime, I would understand the question of parole, but not 32. And with a baby, which she clearly didn’t think about at all. She knew her cohorts were armed and dangerous. She knew what they were doing. She knew what she was doing. She’s still alive and has days in and days out to indulge herself in reading, writing, and studying. She’s a ward of the state, fed and housed by the taxpayers. He jail cell is larger than the caskets of those she killed. I have no sympathy for this woman. I feel for the families of those who were killed by her selfish, reckless, thoughtless actions. There is no reason she should not spend the rest of her life where she is and where she belongs: in jail.
8
What has happened in the world in places where extreme violence has occurred, and perpetrators did thing under cover of war, and after war... is, perpetration goes on because systems are too weak to capture and punish people for murder/rape/horrible assault. Here are some core principles to consider:
1. Impunity for crime leads to societal degradation, immense suffering, devolution to use of violence as a way of life. Only sociopaths want to live like this. Criminals must have crimes named, described, addressed, and must receive consequences for harming others that is proportionate to the crime committed. Impunity is not justice.
2. Societies and those directly harmed have the right and indeed must have justice, or anger is pervasive, and society degrades. Studies done by Australians have described something akin to road rage; studies in Bosnia describe intense frustration and anger which boils over easily & frequently.
3. Doing good deeds does not erase bad deeds. There must be atonement, amends, ownership of, acknowledgment of--with no excuses--what was done to hurt others. Good deeds are not enough. Remorse for actions is necessary for healing.
4. The harmed may forgive; but out of free will, for themselves, and as a gift to the perpetrator. Perpetrators and their supporters may not demand forgiveness.
5. Societies may be merciful.
6. Rehabilitation does not require societies to grant mercy.
7. Forgiving/granting mercy are very healing for society and victims.
1. Impunity for crime leads to societal degradation, immense suffering, devolution to use of violence as a way of life. Only sociopaths want to live like this. Criminals must have crimes named, described, addressed, and must receive consequences for harming others that is proportionate to the crime committed. Impunity is not justice.
2. Societies and those directly harmed have the right and indeed must have justice, or anger is pervasive, and society degrades. Studies done by Australians have described something akin to road rage; studies in Bosnia describe intense frustration and anger which boils over easily & frequently.
3. Doing good deeds does not erase bad deeds. There must be atonement, amends, ownership of, acknowledgment of--with no excuses--what was done to hurt others. Good deeds are not enough. Remorse for actions is necessary for healing.
4. The harmed may forgive; but out of free will, for themselves, and as a gift to the perpetrator. Perpetrators and their supporters may not demand forgiveness.
5. Societies may be merciful.
6. Rehabilitation does not require societies to grant mercy.
7. Forgiving/granting mercy are very healing for society and victims.
3
Ms. Clark may be a model prisoner and even made “exceptional strides in self-development,” but those who support her release miss the point. She is remains "a symbol of a terroristic crime” and her victims, their families and the larger society still suffer from her cruelty.
11
Incredible article. And very interesting comments. I noticed the police car in the picture has the number "224" painted on the side. I happen to know what that means. The Clarkstown Police Department then, and maybe still today, numbered their patrol cars from 211 to 229. I know that. And I also know a lot of the people who drove those cars every day. They were my neighbors, as well as friends' fathers. I also went to junior high school with the nephew of one of the slain police officers. And I still remember his absence after his uncle's murder. So what is my point? Ms. Clark participated in a very heinous crime. And she paid a very heavy price. And I believe, although it runs against my present lefty politics, that she should continue paying a heavy price. The men murdered in cold blood were members of my community. And it still hurts to this day. As a NY taxpayer, I would be horrified to pay for her continued incarceration. But as a neighbor of the victims, I would applaud the punishment meted.
9
It doesn't matter what so-called price she paid or what "great strides" she made in prison. She should continue to pay to the very end of her miserable life.
Then, and only then can it truly be stated, DEBT PAID IN FULL! And, I for one, wouldn't mind paying to have that "truth" engraved on her headstone!
Then, and only then can it truly be stated, DEBT PAID IN FULL! And, I for one, wouldn't mind paying to have that "truth" engraved on her headstone!
4
In a country that is routinely and willingly able to manufacture innumerable justifications for police who regularly shoot unarmed young black men and suffer no consequences at all, the parole board's decision to deny Judith Clark is clearly not only unreasonable and irrational, but vituperative and vindictive as well. Unlike the vast majority of murderous law enforcement individuals involved in shootings in the past few years, Ms. Clarke has taken responsibility for her actions and paid a steep price. No one begrudges the families and fellow officers of the victims their sorrow and anger, but after 35 years it begins to look more like vengeance and ugliness. One wonders how they would feel if the tables were turned and their loved one had killed someone else? Judith Clark will never be able to undo what happened that night, but she has given her pound of flesh and keeping her in prison at this point is very clearly far more a political decision than anything else. The fact that Cuomo could have commuted her sentence outright and freed her but found it too "politically risky" says it all. Not to mention that the actual murderer is out of prison with far fewer people testifying to the good he has done during his time. The smug satisfaction of those who are so happy she remains in prison is shameful and embarrassing. Their hatred is directed at the wrong target, and whatever humanity they may have once had engendered by this tragedy is clearly long gone.
10
Reminds me of the armed robbery by a man and woman in Ohio. She is the getaway driver, while he robs and kills the victim. He cuts a deal and testifies for the prosecution and gets life in prison. She is charged with felony murder, convicted and executed. This sort of thing happens a lot in the US criminal justice system. It doesn't seem fair or reasonable from the common sense point of view. So regardless of how many letters from police unions the authorities get, this woman should now be freed.
9
Thank you, Jerry White! Judy is truly a remarkable woman. I know. I've met her several times, and am humbled by all she has done to help others. People do have the capacity to change. For those who do not, I feel only pity.
3
If she served her time and is in no danger of repeating violence, she should have been freed. This endless imprisonment seems to serve no one. It seems like endless revenge.
14
Bernie Madoff didn't murder anybody. Just fleeced myriad greedy investors with eyes willfully closed seeking a quick buck. Why is that a con artist generates less Progressive sympathy regarding a pardon than a killer?
7
We do not throw a police officer in jail for life, if he suffers the delusion, that a child standing in front of him, holding a candy bar wrapped in silvery foil, is a lethal threat. It is time to forgive Judith Clark's lethal delusion.
After surviving a 35 year period in a U.S. prison, if released today, Judith Clark, would not have "gotten away with" anything.
Excessive brutalization of prisoners, does not increase anyone's safety, including police officers. The result may be just the opposite.
After surviving a 35 year period in a U.S. prison, if released today, Judith Clark, would not have "gotten away with" anything.
Excessive brutalization of prisoners, does not increase anyone's safety, including police officers. The result may be just the opposite.
14
Peter, this comment is not really very helpful because your beginning premise that an officer kills a child by mistake is the same as a pre-meditated robbery/murder of three people. Her lethal delusion? Do you mean her mindset and radicalization that led her to participate in the murder of three people?
It is deterring to people when there is a clear line: this is murder. This is crime.
Nothing excuses murder.
It is deterring to people when there is a clear line: this is murder. This is crime.
Nothing excuses murder.
6
Judy didn't murder anyone. Furthermore, the shootings were not premeditated, as you say.
2
the robbery was premeditated, and the robbers were armed. They were prepared to use the arms, and they did. That is premeditation.
One of the stood over the black police officer and pumped more bullets into his chest after he was down. Sorry, that is a plan to kill. Alison, I can see you are very passionate about Judith Clark being released. But this has to be looked at soberly, clearly, with compassion, but also with a full examination of perpetration and whether mercy is advisable.
One of the stood over the black police officer and pumped more bullets into his chest after he was down. Sorry, that is a plan to kill. Alison, I can see you are very passionate about Judith Clark being released. But this has to be looked at soberly, clearly, with compassion, but also with a full examination of perpetration and whether mercy is advisable.
6
I doubt that the comments would be so sympathetic to the offender had she been an uneducated black man of about the same age.
5
Progressives would champion Colin Ferguson over Dylan Roof.
6
She was a 32 year old white woman with a baby. So how insane was her risk taking for just her self well-being? Answer: Absolute mindless recklessness. Not a racial issue.
7
You do the crime and then you do the time.
9
She's done the time - and then some! Think about it! Or are you one of those who thinks only in cliches?
7
OK, so Clark stays incarcerated. How come Henry Kissinger is still at large?
6
And George W. Bush for the Iraq war, Barack Obama for his drones that have killed many innocent civilians was well as "legitimate" targets, etcetera. In three words: power, legitimacy, and money. Ms. Clark and her compatriots had none of the three items I mentioned, and they took a criminal shortcut to get it. Kissinger, Bush, Obama and the like have the political cover of all three to keep them. Besides, their crimes are not nearly as in-your-face as Ms. Clark's was. Their deeds are committed overseas, reported on as little or as much as the mainstream media deems worthy to tell.
4
Patrick, I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying about Ms. Clarke. Should she be freed? Should she be held accountable for her crime? For how long?
This is not a question, really, of comparison. Where do you stand on perpetration, on punishment, on impunity, on sentencing, on punishment, on deterrence, on law, on mercy, on forgiveness, on rehabilitation. We are muddying the water with these comparisons,though people clearly feel passionate about the issues.
This is not a question, really, of comparison. Where do you stand on perpetration, on punishment, on impunity, on sentencing, on punishment, on deterrence, on law, on mercy, on forgiveness, on rehabilitation. We are muddying the water with these comparisons,though people clearly feel passionate about the issues.
3
Thank you, mjb.
Daughter: "My mother did not kill anyone" Apple doesn't fall far from the tree! She should never get out...she knew the plan.. plan was to just start shooting! She knowingly was envolved knowing the gaurds would be killed. And NO!!! She wasn't a remorseful person for 35 years. Not even close! Let her rot!
7
And how do you know what the plan was and what Judy Clark knew about it? She has undergone a remarkable transformation over the decades, as many hundreds of people have testified, including prison personnel who knew her over periods of years. Beyond being deeply remorseful, she has done enormous good in promoting the education and well-being of other prisoners and their children, not to mention her training of service dogs for persons outside the prison. On the one occasion when I had the chance to meet Ms. Clark at the Bedford Hills prison, I was immediately aware of being in the presence of an extraordinary woman. As a psychologist of religion who has researched and written about conversion, I have no doubt that she represents a genuine and long-enduring case of it. I only wish that the NYT had chosen a picture of her now. Her face itself testifies to her intelligence and transformation.
7
My mother did not kill anyone. This is, again, sliding out of responsibility, and this has been transmitted to the daughter from the mother, apparently.
9
"On the one occasion when I had the chance to meet Ms. Clark at the Bedford Hills prison, I was immediately aware of being in the presence of an extraordinary woman."
To listen to some of you, she's some kind of religious saint. To my mind, this sort of malarkey does NOT help, even though personally, I've concluded she should probably be released. "In the presence of ..." like there's some kind of mystical aura around here?
"I only wish that the NYT had chosen a picture of her now. Her face itself testifies to her intelligence and transformation."
Please. That's patent nonsense. If she's as decent a person now as the evidence seems to suggest, I'm guessing even she herself is cringing to read this sort of thing.
To listen to some of you, she's some kind of religious saint. To my mind, this sort of malarkey does NOT help, even though personally, I've concluded she should probably be released. "In the presence of ..." like there's some kind of mystical aura around here?
"I only wish that the NYT had chosen a picture of her now. Her face itself testifies to her intelligence and transformation."
Please. That's patent nonsense. If she's as decent a person now as the evidence seems to suggest, I'm guessing even she herself is cringing to read this sort of thing.
3
The article is incomplete and does not give necessary background information. Judith Clarke and Kathy Boudin were the privileged white liberal females at this infamous crime. All the African Americans are still incarcerated or died in jail. The paradox is that it would be hard to find people who have benefited more from the white privilege they complain about or who abused their status within American society more than this group. (Although the white husband of Kathy Boudin is still incarcerated but alive).
Here are some bits & pieces. There is more but space is limited.
Judith Clarke's daughter, Harriet, is lecturer at Stanford in the creative writing program
Kathy Boudin’s father, Leonard Boudin was the nephew of Louis Boudin, influential Socialist, labor lawyer and professor of constitutional law at Yale University. His brother-in-law was influential left-wing journalist I. F. Stone. Boudin
Kathy Boudin’s brother, Michael Boudin, is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, serving as chief judge 2001-2008.
Chesa Boudin, Kathy Boudin’s son was raised by "adoptive parents" Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, like his parents, were one-time members of the Weather Underground. In 2003, he graduated from Yale University. He spent his junior year at the University of Chile, funded by a Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholarship. He went to Oxford University on a 2003 Rhodes Scholarship & graduated from Yale Law School in 2011
Here are some bits & pieces. There is more but space is limited.
Judith Clarke's daughter, Harriet, is lecturer at Stanford in the creative writing program
Kathy Boudin’s father, Leonard Boudin was the nephew of Louis Boudin, influential Socialist, labor lawyer and professor of constitutional law at Yale University. His brother-in-law was influential left-wing journalist I. F. Stone. Boudin
Kathy Boudin’s brother, Michael Boudin, is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, serving as chief judge 2001-2008.
Chesa Boudin, Kathy Boudin’s son was raised by "adoptive parents" Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, like his parents, were one-time members of the Weather Underground. In 2003, he graduated from Yale University. He spent his junior year at the University of Chile, funded by a Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholarship. He went to Oxford University on a 2003 Rhodes Scholarship & graduated from Yale Law School in 2011
12
There is no punishment which will return those killed and to kill her in this manner serves no purpose short of vengeance.
6
She is not being killed. She is being allowed to live, she has relationships with daughter and someone's dogs, ongoing, but she is incarcerated, serving a sentence for the crime of three murders.
Is vengeance ever justified? But further than that, is impunity? Are people who take the lives of others so thoughtlessly or in service of extreme views...accountable criminally? Should they be incarcerated at all if they say they are sorry and do a few good deeds?
Is vengeance ever justified? But further than that, is impunity? Are people who take the lives of others so thoughtlessly or in service of extreme views...accountable criminally? Should they be incarcerated at all if they say they are sorry and do a few good deeds?
4
She's done quite a bit more than a few good deeds! Judy needs to be released, not only for her own sake but for the sake of a society whose so-called criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul. Vengeance is like a malignant tumor that consumes its perpetrators, achieving nothing but its own self-perpetuation.
4
Alison, you are very passionate about this. It is not vengeance alone. There are serious considerations in this case related to:
perpetration, accepting full responsibility for what she did, remorse, punishment, justice, accountability, and rehabilitation. Impunity.
These must be balanced against, mercy, and the desire of a society to be merciful. Showing mercy can be healing; it can also backfire. So it must be deliberate and coolly assessed. Forgiveness, must be voluntary, not demanded of someone harmed. It will only be healing if freely given.
All the justification in the world--that she did not pull the trigger, that she was young, that she was radicalized and under sway--does not erase what happened. We cannot cover bad deeds with good deeds. The bad deeds must be FULLY addressed, fully considered, named, owned, and remorse felt. And once that is done, it does not require that society be merciful. It has to make sense for both parties. Right now, the parole board is not disposed to be merciful.
I am sure that is very disappointing to her. But that is what she risked when she did the deed. She has done her best, since. That is not taken away by the parole board's decision. It is to her honor that she has, to her credit.
But this is not about credit. It is about balancing justice with mercy. We aren't there yet, apparently.
perpetration, accepting full responsibility for what she did, remorse, punishment, justice, accountability, and rehabilitation. Impunity.
These must be balanced against, mercy, and the desire of a society to be merciful. Showing mercy can be healing; it can also backfire. So it must be deliberate and coolly assessed. Forgiveness, must be voluntary, not demanded of someone harmed. It will only be healing if freely given.
All the justification in the world--that she did not pull the trigger, that she was young, that she was radicalized and under sway--does not erase what happened. We cannot cover bad deeds with good deeds. The bad deeds must be FULLY addressed, fully considered, named, owned, and remorse felt. And once that is done, it does not require that society be merciful. It has to make sense for both parties. Right now, the parole board is not disposed to be merciful.
I am sure that is very disappointing to her. But that is what she risked when she did the deed. She has done her best, since. That is not taken away by the parole board's decision. It is to her honor that she has, to her credit.
But this is not about credit. It is about balancing justice with mercy. We aren't there yet, apparently.
3
It's a complete waste of taxpayer money to hold anyone in prison past the age of 60 unless they pose a threat to public safety after serving so many years in prison. No other western nation has anywhere near the percentage of people in prison past the age of 60 that the US has. The fact that others in the crime were released so long ago makes this a mockery.
5
Next yr. Colin Ferguson turns 60. So this hateful mass murderer should be freed?
6
If she hasn't disavowed her extremist political views then I wouldn't say that she has made "exceptional strides in self-development" or has been rehabilitated.
8
A wonderful novel by the late Elizabeth Swados portrays a woman in Judith Clark's circumstances. "Walking the Dog" is about a privileged young woman who drives a getaway car for a confused group of armed acquaintances attempting to make a thoughtless political statement. The novel depicts the protagonist's decades of torment and degradation in our prison system. Surely she has paid her dues when she is at last released---a "redeemed" prisoner who has done much good for others during her incarceration. I don't know details of Judith Clark's story, but Swados's character is no longer the artist and free person she was in her youth. On release, she struggles to survive as a NYC dog-walker, thankful that the dogs in her life can go a small way to relieve the PTSD from prison life that has rendered her a heart-wrenching remnant---albeit a courageous and honest one---of her former self.
2
If you'd like to learn more about Judy's story, I recommend reading Tom Robbins' Times Magazine cover story from January 15, 2012. It's easily available online. Then go and visit her. She's a remarkable woman!
I went and read it. My views have not changed. She is remarkable, but she still perpetrated a crime which resulted in 3 people's murders.
5
Legally accomplices are viewed as equally guilty. Can anyone claim that she wasn't an accomplice if she "drove the getaway car". And what happened to others involved is completely irrelevant. I am a liberal but killing two police officers and a guard would normally have led to a death sentence
6
I'm old enough to remember the early 1970's, when domestic terrorist activity first began in an apparently systematic way in our country. That activity continued into the 1980s here and in Europe - there by the likes of the so-called "Red Army Faction," aka the "Baader-Meinhof Group."
Several incidents from the early 70's- all of them perpetrated by militant leftists - stand out vividly in my memory - but most vivid of to me of them all is my recollection of a Black Panther attack on Marin County, California's very distinctive-looking courthouse (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright) in August 1970.
I can easily recall the stark black-and-white news photos of a Superior Court Judge taken as one of several hostages, being pulled toward a waiting van, with a shotgun taped incongruously to his neck by the perpetrators of that incident. Several people were killed - including that judge, and all but one of the attackers.
If, in the year 2017, we were living in a country in which millions of people were not both frightened and enraged by terrorist attacks, domestic and foreign, that have occurred over the last 47 years, Judith Clark - worthy as she might be of being released from prison - likely would have have been paroled this year.
Several incidents from the early 70's- all of them perpetrated by militant leftists - stand out vividly in my memory - but most vivid of to me of them all is my recollection of a Black Panther attack on Marin County, California's very distinctive-looking courthouse (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright) in August 1970.
I can easily recall the stark black-and-white news photos of a Superior Court Judge taken as one of several hostages, being pulled toward a waiting van, with a shotgun taped incongruously to his neck by the perpetrators of that incident. Several people were killed - including that judge, and all but one of the attackers.
If, in the year 2017, we were living in a country in which millions of people were not both frightened and enraged by terrorist attacks, domestic and foreign, that have occurred over the last 47 years, Judith Clark - worthy as she might be of being released from prison - likely would have have been paroled this year.
Judith Clark, who drove a getaway car, pleaded not guilty, refused counsel, and acted up in court.
One of her accomplices, Kathy Boudin, convinced cops to drop their guard. after they were stopped during the getaway, resulting in one of them being killed. She came from a well-to-family, obtained counsel (a law partner of her father's firm), reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a single count of murder, received a 20 year to life sentence and was released on parole in 2003.
The lesson it seems, is summed up by Saul Goodman's vanity plate: "LWYRUP"
One of her accomplices, Kathy Boudin, convinced cops to drop their guard. after they were stopped during the getaway, resulting in one of them being killed. She came from a well-to-family, obtained counsel (a law partner of her father's firm), reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a single count of murder, received a 20 year to life sentence and was released on parole in 2003.
The lesson it seems, is summed up by Saul Goodman's vanity plate: "LWYRUP"
10
Mr Factoid. USA - "... acted up in court"! Yikes that's unforgivable. Thank heavens we have your factoidiness.
2
"The Parole Board's decision ignores Ms. Clark's extraordinary record of achievement and transformation and instead elevates calls for interminable punishment," said attorney Steve Zeidman.
From the mouths of lawyers sometime come the most ridiculous statements.
The perps took what didn't belong to them and they took it by deadly force. The police & guard are still dead while Clark breathes, eats, sleeps, talks to people. She can never set right what she and her accomplices did.
From the mouths of lawyers sometime come the most ridiculous statements.
The perps took what didn't belong to them and they took it by deadly force. The police & guard are still dead while Clark breathes, eats, sleeps, talks to people. She can never set right what she and her accomplices did.
18
She wasn't the shooter. That may not make a difference legally, but it does morally.
7
There's no morality in participating in the robbery and murder. If you're a sentient human being you know full well what you were getting involved in when participating in a robbery that might lead to violence, to somebody's death.
6
I just looked her up on Wikipedia and learned that she was a month shy of her 32nd birthday at the time of the Brink's robbery. At 32, you do not get the benefit of claiming "youthful indiscretion." Being a model prisoner should not buy freedom when complicit in a triple murder.
19
The injustice here isn't that she was denied parole, it was the release years earlier of her more culpable co-conspirators, Mutulu Shakur, Kathy Boudin, David Gilbert, et. al!
15
Shakur and Gilbert remain incarcerated. Clark was as committed as any participant and participated in this crime despite the murder of another armored car guard in the robbery immediately preceding this one.
3
Preplanned operation. Each played their role, which makes each one equally culpable.
5
"My mother didn't kill anybody", says her daughter. Well, she didn't protect anybody either, now did she? She sat by while people were slaughtered & didn't lift a finger. Black men in the USA have been sentenced to death for a lot less.
13
America home of the racists, vindictive, hypocritical and abusive. Shame!
2
What a shame, Columbia University and other Leftie colleges will have to turn elsewhere to hire their next cop killer/terrorist.
10
When will Sirhan Sirhan get out? He has been in prison 49 years and he killed just one person. Where is the compassion? Where is the concern over "wasted tax dollars."
4
Most people would see a difference, Cleo, between a getaway car driver and someone like Sirhan, who, face to face with the victim, pulls the trigger -- even if the law treats them both the same.
5
Ted Kennedy wanted mercy for Sirhan Sirhan. And it was his right to give it, or not.
1
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Much easier for an incarcerated female murderer actively seeking redemption. A male inmate doing the same would be branded as weak, increasing odds of physical attack including rape.
7
Notwithstanding her involvement in the murder of three people. My research indicates that Judith Clark is EXACTLY the kind of inmate that we wish ALL prisoners would become. In addition, it appears that her education and positive activism and volunteerism would allow her to assimilate very well into society even after more than thirty years behind bars.
I have no reason whatsoever to advocate this position other than to read and understand the facts of the case. It would be difficult for me to imagine a more compelling case for release. What I want to know is who is paying for this woman's continued incarceration? If its my dollars, I sure want a say in this, and I say let her out.
Sometimes the things we do as a nation just stupefy me.
I have no reason whatsoever to advocate this position other than to read and understand the facts of the case. It would be difficult for me to imagine a more compelling case for release. What I want to know is who is paying for this woman's continued incarceration? If its my dollars, I sure want a say in this, and I say let her out.
Sometimes the things we do as a nation just stupefy me.
12
"Notwithstanding" Lincoln getting shot in the back of the head, it was a thrilling night of theater.
6
Improv gets it just right.
2
The Evil Empire of the USA rarely does the reasonable, uplifting thing. It stands for violent treatment of offenders and refuses to consider anyone to be rehabilitated. Even killers can be rehabilitated in most countries, and there are usually limits to how long any person can be imprisoned. OF COURSE this woman is an entirely different person today, but in the U. S. -- who cares? There is a wonderful organization called Murder Victim's Families for Reconciliation. I have heard some of these members speak, and the divide of Americans into the violent and non-violent is very evident in all they do. We will all go down into eternal perdition and disappearance, in fact, from the universe if the violent have their way. Always meet violence with violence? That's our creed.
1
I was at the University of Chicago when Judith Clark was there. That was the late 60s. There were lots of radicals, and also many others like me who were hippies at the time.
I crossed paths with her once, and she lived with 4 other women, and three were also radicals, and my friend was also a hippy, They had posters of Black Panthers up, not rock stars.
There was a huge diversity of opinion there, but also a large radical group, who mostly kept to themselves. At the end of my senior year there was the fourth consecutive sit in of the Administrative Building, each year for a different reason. By the way, Bernie Sanders went to UC and led the first sit in there.
Our entire student government was expelled and many became Weathermen. One thing I've never read is that all the radicals were stoned all the time, so they spent their time only speaking to each other and had the delusion that the country was on the verge of a revolution and it was up to them to start it. I assume most of them grew out of it, but others thought violence was just fine.
Judith Clark had a choice about what to do to effect change. Bernie Sanders has spent his life trying to do that and it didn't involve robbing a Brinks truck and being complicit in killing three people. I'm glad she has had a change of heart in the fifty years since then. But she did more than make a mistake. A robbery would have been bad enough, but an armed robbery leaving 3 people dead is more than a "mistake".
I crossed paths with her once, and she lived with 4 other women, and three were also radicals, and my friend was also a hippy, They had posters of Black Panthers up, not rock stars.
There was a huge diversity of opinion there, but also a large radical group, who mostly kept to themselves. At the end of my senior year there was the fourth consecutive sit in of the Administrative Building, each year for a different reason. By the way, Bernie Sanders went to UC and led the first sit in there.
Our entire student government was expelled and many became Weathermen. One thing I've never read is that all the radicals were stoned all the time, so they spent their time only speaking to each other and had the delusion that the country was on the verge of a revolution and it was up to them to start it. I assume most of them grew out of it, but others thought violence was just fine.
Judith Clark had a choice about what to do to effect change. Bernie Sanders has spent his life trying to do that and it didn't involve robbing a Brinks truck and being complicit in killing three people. I'm glad she has had a change of heart in the fifty years since then. But she did more than make a mistake. A robbery would have been bad enough, but an armed robbery leaving 3 people dead is more than a "mistake".
21
She helped kill three people. The people she helped to kill will never get a commutation of their sentence.
12
Was Cuomo was too fainthearted to just commute her sentence, or just too ambitious?
As a former prosecutor for over 10 years, and now a criminal defense attorney for 12 years, I am very concerned by how police and their families and supporters are gradually being encouraged to see their interests as opposed to larger and larger segments of our population. (The stop and frisk practices once used by NYPD was largely illegal even though the mainstream media never said so.)
Is this really a case in which it is appropriate that the loss of police officers' lives be treated as so much more valuable than other citizens? While, it is true that many police officers face more danger than other people and need more protection, is this really being done in behalf of all of us or just favoring the servants of the establishment to keep police loyal, especially for the future when they will more and more be asked to act against the American public itself e.g. at protest demonstrations?
Is the message really being sent that no one should challenge the use of police even when they are being used for government suppression of dissent?
As a former prosecutor for over 10 years, and now a criminal defense attorney for 12 years, I am very concerned by how police and their families and supporters are gradually being encouraged to see their interests as opposed to larger and larger segments of our population. (The stop and frisk practices once used by NYPD was largely illegal even though the mainstream media never said so.)
Is this really a case in which it is appropriate that the loss of police officers' lives be treated as so much more valuable than other citizens? While, it is true that many police officers face more danger than other people and need more protection, is this really being done in behalf of all of us or just favoring the servants of the establishment to keep police loyal, especially for the future when they will more and more be asked to act against the American public itself e.g. at protest demonstrations?
Is the message really being sent that no one should challenge the use of police even when they are being used for government suppression of dissent?
2
I can see the argument for releasing this long standing incarcerated convict. I am also comfortable letting her die in prison. She participated in actions that took the lives of three people. Life is all we really have in this world, and her depriving three people of that privilege eliminates any claim she will ever have for clemency.
11
Well said, pellam. Your last sentence logically refutes every argument for parole, pardon, or commutation of her sentence.
4
I don't think perpetrators can actually claim clemency. A society can be merciful, however.
2
why have a parole board at all, if its only role is to re-affirm and uphold what long imprisonment does already? is there any space in this society for real forgiveness? why do only some people count? whose suffering is important, and whose isn't?
8
Mary, many people do get paroled. The suffering of the victims takes precedence if we are figuring out whose suffering is important here.
She took a risk of imprisonment if caught; it was a bad gamble. So she is suffering. It was, however, her choice.
She took a risk of imprisonment if caught; it was a bad gamble. So she is suffering. It was, however, her choice.
2
She was involved in the murder of three men. Two police officers and a security guard. Maybe prison has reformed her, but perhaps due to the gravity of the crime she should stay right where she is. We do not need to forgive.
7
Nothing to look at here. She, a fully formed adult who suffered no misfortunes upon which to blame her actions, participated in a violent crime where the results were foreseeable. In an age when political terrorism is on the upswing, the parole board is not unjustified in thinking that making one terrorist serve her entire sentence might make at least one other think twice before doing something that will kill innocent persons and defenders of civil society.
9
Did she actually kill anybody? I know she was convicted of felony murder, but did actually pull the trigger? Just wondering. 75 years seems a lot of punishment for being a getaway driver.....
Alternative Fact: Ms. Clark was young an naive when she decided to commit armed robbery.
Fact: She was in her thirties, and knew exactly what she was doing.
Alternative Fact: She did not pull the trigger and was remorseful
Fact: Even after knowing that her armed robbery killed 2 police officers and a security guard, she proudly proclaimed in court, months later, that her actions were righteous.
Alternative Fact: Her daughter and family are without her.
Fact: Her daughter and her family have been with her frequently and spent substantial time together. Ms Clark is seen happy, smiling and having a great time with her family on multiple photographs.
Alternative Fact: It was a mistake and she is rehabilitated, no harm will be done in releasing her.
Fact: If she is released, she will immediately hit the lecture circuit, will be made into a personality by the left and all most of the commenters here, will gain more notoriety and even make money out of her crime.
Her release is unacceptable for any thinking human being that care about law and justice.
Fact: She was in her thirties, and knew exactly what she was doing.
Alternative Fact: She did not pull the trigger and was remorseful
Fact: Even after knowing that her armed robbery killed 2 police officers and a security guard, she proudly proclaimed in court, months later, that her actions were righteous.
Alternative Fact: Her daughter and family are without her.
Fact: Her daughter and her family have been with her frequently and spent substantial time together. Ms Clark is seen happy, smiling and having a great time with her family on multiple photographs.
Alternative Fact: It was a mistake and she is rehabilitated, no harm will be done in releasing her.
Fact: If she is released, she will immediately hit the lecture circuit, will be made into a personality by the left and all most of the commenters here, will gain more notoriety and even make money out of her crime.
Her release is unacceptable for any thinking human being that care about law and justice.
15
Oversimplification by declaring that "the left" will "make her into a personality" is not helpful. I haven't done a statistical analysis but I'm pretty sure I'm part of "the left" - and not just over the line, but I do not think it wrong that Clark remains in prison. One thing that I would offer however is that forgiving her for her part in the robbery and the murders is one thing, releasing her prior to her finishing her sentence is another. Some people here seem to conflate the two.
I'm not a citizen of the State of New York but I think that Gov. Cuomo made the right choice in commuting Clark's sentence. I also think that the parole board has fulfilled its responsibility in an appropriate manner. Parole boards are second-guessed in many decisions that they are called upon to make. I cannot imagine a more thankless job.
I'm not a citizen of the State of New York but I think that Gov. Cuomo made the right choice in commuting Clark's sentence. I also think that the parole board has fulfilled its responsibility in an appropriate manner. Parole boards are second-guessed in many decisions that they are called upon to make. I cannot imagine a more thankless job.
2
I think she could be paroled, but this story should have included a quote from a member of one of the families of the officers killed because of her action.
3
"A symbol of a terroristic crime."
But many on the anti-parole side will defend the use of,the wearing of, the swastika by white supremacists, as their freedom of speech.
Symbols. Who here even knew this woman's name before reading the article, and maybe, just maybe were reminded of the event? Knew her nameso that had she been released, and it even made the news- would have been inspired to commit similar acts!>!
"Oh hey, she got out, after 35 years, sounds like a good deal for me! Lets roll!"
Symbols...Americans and their symbols. What a joke. This woman is a terror symbol, but confederate flags on government institutions are just "good 'ol historical images that mean nothing." That sports teams with names like Chiefs, Indians, etc are not symbols, just innocent cartoons - but this woman is a national threat. Apt to inspire a rash of armed robberies and murder.
Symbols. Like a president that vacations more then any other, and costs taxpayers millions every week...nothing there, no symbol of excess there. Or the White Advisor daughter making bucks on her revitalized product line. Nope, no symbolism there...keep moving, nothing to see...
But many on the anti-parole side will defend the use of,the wearing of, the swastika by white supremacists, as their freedom of speech.
Symbols. Who here even knew this woman's name before reading the article, and maybe, just maybe were reminded of the event? Knew her nameso that had she been released, and it even made the news- would have been inspired to commit similar acts!>!
"Oh hey, she got out, after 35 years, sounds like a good deal for me! Lets roll!"
Symbols...Americans and their symbols. What a joke. This woman is a terror symbol, but confederate flags on government institutions are just "good 'ol historical images that mean nothing." That sports teams with names like Chiefs, Indians, etc are not symbols, just innocent cartoons - but this woman is a national threat. Apt to inspire a rash of armed robberies and murder.
Symbols. Like a president that vacations more then any other, and costs taxpayers millions every week...nothing there, no symbol of excess there. Or the White Advisor daughter making bucks on her revitalized product line. Nope, no symbolism there...keep moving, nothing to see...
20
The woman participated in the murder of three people.
7
Yeah let's go rob a bank we only have to spend 35 years in prison. Lol she's already paid the ultimate price; let her go.
Only the people who don't know her want her incarcerated.
She did something really stupid and she knows it and we all know it. Keeping hurting consummated does not serve anyone.
Only the people who don't know her want her incarcerated.
She did something really stupid and she knows it and we all know it. Keeping hurting consummated does not serve anyone.
5
All those involved in these killings should have been given the death sentence.But since we consider the death sentence barbaric they should have been given life without chance of parole.Eye for an eye.They should all for in prison.
Why is it a "violent left-wing movement," not a "terrorist group"?
For that matter, why are they "white nationalists" instead of "terrorists"?
For that matter, why are they "white nationalists" instead of "terrorists"?
10
The term Terrorist Group is over used in this modern era. Technically our founding fathers would be labeled terrorist and running a violent left wing movement. To some they are terrorist to others freedom fighters - all depends who wins and writes history.
We are shown "Judith Clark in a family photo from 2014"
Please show us family photos, also from 2014, of the murdered guard and two police officers.
Please show us family photos, also from 2014, of the murdered guard and two police officers.
22
Mr Cuomo should take his "holier than thou" comments to the relatives and friends of the people that died.
11
That's a very 'holier than thou' statement my dear.
6
Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez has been jailed without bond on murder and burglary warrants because she was the getaway driver in a home invasion in Oklahoma. Under Oklahoma law, a person who took part in a crime in which people were killed could be charged with murder. She will likely spend the rest of her days on death row and end up dying in botched execution.
No comparison in the cases except two females made stupid decisions by driving the cars. Burglars were killed in Oklahoma whose lives are valueless compared to the victim in the Clark case who will have a strong voice that advocates in keeping Ms. Clark in prison until she dies. Hopefully, the Times is around in 40 years to write a similar article on Ms. Rodriquez.
No comparison in the cases except two females made stupid decisions by driving the cars. Burglars were killed in Oklahoma whose lives are valueless compared to the victim in the Clark case who will have a strong voice that advocates in keeping Ms. Clark in prison until she dies. Hopefully, the Times is around in 40 years to write a similar article on Ms. Rodriquez.
nixon, lbj, w, cheney, perle, wolfowitz, kissinger, et al
were responsible for the killings of millions (Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq)
and the wasting of trillions
as adults
and they live atop the rabble,
awash in privilege, pomp and cash
can someone who wants this woman, who was brainwashed as a child, in jail forever please explain to me why this makes sense?
were responsible for the killings of millions (Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq)
and the wasting of trillions
as adults
and they live atop the rabble,
awash in privilege, pomp and cash
can someone who wants this woman, who was brainwashed as a child, in jail forever please explain to me why this makes sense?
16
They get libraries and great pensions instead.
3
Christians think that punishment is good for the soul, as long as that soul belongs to someone else.
5
There are many inmates presently serving life sentences for non-violent drug offenses, some under so-called three strike laws. Before getting bent out of shape about a woman partially responsible for three heinous murders (whether she pulled the trigger or not as a willing participant in the crime she is at least partially responsible) people should wonder why inmates who are far less culpable than her remain behind bars. We need a system wide revision of sentencing regimes which warehouse people who are capable of being rehabilitated and returning to society, not a knee-jerk reaction to one particular defendant.
21
4.4% of the world's population live in the United States, which we claim is the land of the free.
But, in the land of the free, we have 22% of the world's prison population.
So why do we say the US is the land of the free?
Our prison system is not designed to rehabilitate anyone. Nor is our criminal justice system - which has nothing to do with justice.
Our courts, prisons and parole system is all about punishment and revenge!
But, in the land of the free, we have 22% of the world's prison population.
So why do we say the US is the land of the free?
Our prison system is not designed to rehabilitate anyone. Nor is our criminal justice system - which has nothing to do with justice.
Our courts, prisons and parole system is all about punishment and revenge!
18
I respectfully disagree. Our courts, prisons and parole systems are all about keeping law and order. Live by the laws of our land and you'll have no problem. Don't like that? Move somewhere else.
3
The Sceptic USA - The percentages argument is childish nonsense that detracts from real arguments concerning criminal justice. It is the most lazy minded criticism available, and addresses no realities on the ground in this society. "Land of the free" does not refer to, "... or in jail." It refers to the liberty associated with good citizenship. You aren't a skeptic, you are a denier.
She was part of a group of people murdering three people. What else does she deserve?
Though I don't condone what Miss Clark did, I think she has paid for her crime as driver. When those that were the actual masterminds behind the crimes, and those that were the actual shooters paid less time for the worse of the crime. It goes to show that the right wing are not christian. I guess the missed the lesson of Jesus forgiveness to those that were crucified with him.
14
Excellent point, Paula. The holier than thou right wingers are big on religion but they pretend not to remember what their Savior when it comes to the essential Christian tenet of forgiveness for sins.
Sins can certainly be forgiven, but it does not let the sinner off from being accountable for sinning.
1
Are we incapable of distinguishing between a crime committed by a 22 year old, a crime in which she did not directly murder or violently harm another, and a 67 year old who is by all accounts fully rehabilitated? If brain science is to be believed, no 22 year old brain is fully matured. Now I wonder if those on the parole board were.
9
Except she was 31 when she did the crime. Some people even become grandparents by that age. Extremely rare of course. But should be definitely considered fully mature.
1
How 22 years old?
Today she is 67, 35 years ago she must have been 67-35 = 32 years old, not exactly an innocent youngster.
Today she is 67, 35 years ago she must have been 67-35 = 32 years old, not exactly an innocent youngster.
I don't know about Clark's brain at 22 but I know of three whose brains have flatlined.
3
Its good that she's now repentant, has been a model prisoner and has worked so hard to do good works while in prison. However, she was fortunate to not be put to death for being a part of the murder of these 3 people. She gets to live and repent for taking their lives and forever changing the lives of these 3 murdered victims families. I hope that she continues to do good things in prison until she is 100. Good job parole board.
15
I'm sure Terry voted for Donald Trump in which he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
1
I believe secular radicals are as brainwashed as religious cult members. However, this is no excuse acts of violence committed against a legitimate state. Conversely,Hugh Monaghan, my children's great grandfather was hanged by the British for acts of violence against an illegitimate state. Judith Clark was an accessory to murder whatever the rationale for her cult's behavior against the legitimate state. Had she been 21 at the time,her sentence should been lighter,but at 31, she was fully cognizant of her actions. Nevertheless,at 67 whether or not she is completely rehabilitated,she is no threat to society. Therefore,she should be released immediately.
6
"It [The parole board decision] focused on the unique nature of her case and the message her release would send to law enforcement. “We do find that your release at this time is incompatible with the welfare of society as expressed by relevant officials and thousands of its members,” the board wrote. 'You are still a symbol of a terroristic crime.'”
So, in the end, the decision was based purely on politics, perceptions, and symbols?
It appears the decision was made long before the hearing.
So, in the end, the decision was based purely on politics, perceptions, and symbols?
It appears the decision was made long before the hearing.
13
I think she should get parole as soon as she is able to resurrect the three people she helped put into the ground.
As far as her good behaviour in prison what choice does she have? I meam really.
As far as her good behaviour in prison what choice does she have? I meam really.
13
I'm guessing you've never been in prison. Although, I would not assume that you have never once done anything that might have landed you there under different circumstances - drunk driving, for example (just one possible example). May you need forgiveness someday, and have it denied by people as closed hearted as yourself.
2
A mistake is an accident, as when someone blows through a stop sign because they were distracted and did not see the sign. Judy Clark did not make a mistake. She did not pull the trigger but she is as responsible as one who did (the felony murder rule).
For me, I do not focus on her so-called rehabilitation. I focus on the three dead men who left spouses and children.
"He who is kind to the cruel will inevitably become cruel to the kind." Talmud.
For me, I do not focus on her so-called rehabilitation. I focus on the three dead men who left spouses and children.
"He who is kind to the cruel will inevitably become cruel to the kind." Talmud.
21
I'm more a a New Testament guy myself. What is the point of keeping old women in prison? Surely she has paid a high price and she is no longer a threat to the populace. Your tax dollars at work, promoting vengeance.
3
but she has served 35 years which is surely enough
7
Holes can be pinched in all aphorisms, especially any from religious texts.
2
This is America -- someone is making money keeping her in prison.
9
Vicki
Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. It can't have anything to do with the fact that she was involved in the murder of three people.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. It can't have anything to do with the fact that she was involved in the murder of three people.
13
Time to get over an event that took place decades ago. It's sad when people wear their grudge as a crown of negativity.
7
Do you know what is sadder?
The husbands, wives, children and extended family and loved ones of the three victims who will spend the rest of their lives grieving.
Let's see assume 30 people that group of people times 3 = 90 people who will suffer from the lost for the rest of their lives in many ways.
and you are worried about this bourgeoise" revolutionary" who thinks it is okay to participate in a crime where three lives were lost because of her stupid world view?
The husbands, wives, children and extended family and loved ones of the three victims who will spend the rest of their lives grieving.
Let's see assume 30 people that group of people times 3 = 90 people who will suffer from the lost for the rest of their lives in many ways.
and you are worried about this bourgeoise" revolutionary" who thinks it is okay to participate in a crime where three lives were lost because of her stupid world view?
6
So "just get over it" applies to the death of three people? Now who wears the crown of negativity?
4
Can you imagine if you were the victim? Do you think you would like someone saying, "just get over it?" Insanity and obscenity.
Prison sentences protect society from further asocial acts, until the person involved is rehabilitated. To use them as retribution is barbaric. After the Old Testament came the New Testament.
12
New Testament? Really? As a Catholic priest once told me (I am a Jew), "Paul took the religion of Jesus and turned it into a religion about Jesus." Poor Judy Clark. How about the poor widows and fatherless children her act of hatred spawned?
5
Those advocating for Clark's freedom would favor releasing a "rehabilitated" Dyan Roof?
12
Dylann Roof murdered nine people.
Clark drove a getaway car.
If you think those crimes are equivalent, you have a serious problem.
But to answer your question: if in forty or fifty years, that is, half a century, two or three generations, Dylann Roof is a completely different person, one who shows true and deep remorse for his crime, and has worked to heal the divide that he once worked to widen?
Under those circumstances, yes. I'd support parole for the 75 year old Roof.
Clark drove a getaway car.
If you think those crimes are equivalent, you have a serious problem.
But to answer your question: if in forty or fifty years, that is, half a century, two or three generations, Dylann Roof is a completely different person, one who shows true and deep remorse for his crime, and has worked to heal the divide that he once worked to widen?
Under those circumstances, yes. I'd support parole for the 75 year old Roof.
8
Roof will be executed. He falls in same category as McVeigh- domestic terrorist. Punishment will be as expedient as system allows. He committed an absolutely atrocious crime and there is zero doubt of guilt. So he will be leaving this world very quickly.
1
I am anti-death penalty, pro rehabilitation, etc etc etc and would probably be considered "a liberal" but I believe that this is a crime that in the big picture, warrants her continued incarceration. Don't knowingly participate in armed robbery where people are likely to get killed. Period.
15
Unfortunately, Clark will be paroled in 2019, right after the 2018 election...It's all rigged.
2
Decisions that we make as adults have consequences. Some have consequences that affect us until the day we die. It's just the reality of life.
7
Yeah, kind of like voting for djt.
4
So Cuomo did a half way thing.. do not recall Jesus ever doing half way stuff.
Anyway, Cuomo can now do the whole thing and commute her sentence.
Anyway, Cuomo can now do the whole thing and commute her sentence.
5
She committed felony murder. She should have been executed. But we can celebrate that she has been denied mercy. After that we can all go to an anti -abortion rally. Then we can go to church.
4
There is no such thing as a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" in California, and now Gov. Coumo has proven it to be true in New York. When liberal governors have a chance, they will always side with the criminal over the victim, even if they are murdered police officers.
10
Laughable..
America, you may not love it but you cannot leave it.
1
Vengeance, hatred and fear are sweeter any day than compassion, forgiveness and love.
That's just the way we humans are wired whatever those who pray to a forgiving god may proclaim.
Hence, more broadly, our current dilemma as tribe battles tribe and a heartless, soulless demagogue occupies the most powerful office in the land. After all, he, like our oxy-moronically titled criminal "justice" system, is going to keep us "safe."
That's just the way we humans are wired whatever those who pray to a forgiving god may proclaim.
Hence, more broadly, our current dilemma as tribe battles tribe and a heartless, soulless demagogue occupies the most powerful office in the land. After all, he, like our oxy-moronically titled criminal "justice" system, is going to keep us "safe."
3
I believe in forgiveness but to call this a "mistake" trivializes the lives that were snuffed out. Why does an accomplice get so much consideration? She deserves none of it.
3
When I was growing up, we were taught that prison was where you went to be rehabilitated so that you would be fit to return to society. Nowadays we know that prisons are merely holding tanks for people who aren't powerful enough to game the system, and who are kept in prison so that private corporations can make money off of the misery of the powerless.
These cops who are unable to forgive are also spiritually lacking, sad specimens of human beings who have lost one of the best things about our species: the ability to forgive someone else.
This society gets sicker by the day.
These cops who are unable to forgive are also spiritually lacking, sad specimens of human beings who have lost one of the best things about our species: the ability to forgive someone else.
This society gets sicker by the day.
16
I think the cops are unable to forgive because they were shot dead.
Spirituality is for fools.
Spirituality is for fools.
4
Prisons are also for punishment; they oppose impunity. Try living in a country where people who commit atrocities on a weekly or daily basis just get to keep doing it, because they know they will not be prosecuted, and they know they will just go free if someone tries to.
Impunity creates great suffering. We have to balance justice for victims, with our desire to be merciful. This is the dilemma everyone is struggling with. She has NO CLAIM to mercy. Mercy can only be granted willingly.
Impunity creates great suffering. We have to balance justice for victims, with our desire to be merciful. This is the dilemma everyone is struggling with. She has NO CLAIM to mercy. Mercy can only be granted willingly.
1
Right on, Allison. Well said.
1
Those of you clamoring she be set free: imaging your father was one of the police officers killed in that robbery, then imagine you and your siblings had to grow up without him, then imagine the hardships your mother had to go through providing for the family without the breadwinner, then return here and post your honest opinion on whether you really think this woman should be released.
15
And keeping her incarcerated changes your situation by . . . ?
4
Then imagine that keeping this woman in prison after 35 years won't bring them back, won't relieve my mother of hardship, won't change anything, in fact.
3
....keeping me safe since it will be a reminder to the oh so righteosus
" revolutionary" out there that killing innocent people has consequences.
" revolutionary" out there that killing innocent people has consequences.
4
Reading just some of the comments I am struck by how many say that vengeance is not theirs. Oh boy there is hardly anything but hate out there these days. Vengeance is not justice nor is it decent. It is a wrong on a wrong.
7
Punishment is not vengeance and being part of the killing of three people deserves punishment. Would a year for each life lost satisfy you?
2
So ask The TIme's readers, if this woman was not a radical socialist, but instead was a Klan member that killed three Black men, would they be all in for parole?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
12
In fact, if a 22-yr-old Klan member was involved in such deaths, and 35 years later had shown total rehabilitation (including utter rejection of the Klan and all of it's workings), yes, I'd be all in. Any other questions?
1
Had the Klan member not been a shooter and had been rehabilitated during his or her 36 years in prison, I would absolutely be in favour of parole.
1
Ivanhead 2, History shows us that if this woman was a Klan member who killed an African American - or a White Civil rights worker - she would have probably not even be arrested, much less jailed for the crime.
Murder is hard to forgive. It is odd that those assigned by society to engage in it on a regular basis -- the police and military -- are the least willing to forgive. The rebels of the Confederacy were forgiven. The war criminals of the Philippines War and Vietnam War were mostly never prosecuted. Harry Truman nuked two cities of civilians and was treated as a hero. Judith Clark volunteered to be in what she thought was a revolutionary army, fighting for justice. She should have been treated as a prisoner of war and released when the war ended. And, by the way, Black Lives Matter.
6
the people who comment on this event don't seem to appreciate the difference between a reasonable punishment, reasonable justice, and vengeance. is there any other country on earth with penalties as long, as excessively long, as ours?
6
I do believe there are other countries where the penalties are longer and or even more harsh. Doesn't make it right, though.
1
An excellent point. The disparity in length of sentences between the US and, say, the UK and Western Europe are egregious. Few commentators take note of this.
1
At what point does "justice" become revenge?
6
A win for the blue mafia.
4
So the 'blue mafia' made her get involved in a crime where three people lost their lives ??
6
The rationale for eliminating the death penalty is the assertion that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment, that wrongful executions cannot be undone, and that life imprisonment is a more fitting sentence for the taking of a human life.
Clark was involved in a crime that led to the death of three people. At the time of her sentencing she expressed no remorse. Nothing arising from her post-trial rehabilitation can bring closure to the families of the three victims.
Let her serve the full sentence. No parole.
jasper
Clark was involved in a crime that led to the death of three people. At the time of her sentencing she expressed no remorse. Nothing arising from her post-trial rehabilitation can bring closure to the families of the three victims.
Let her serve the full sentence. No parole.
jasper
11
Our justice system does not exist for the purpose of serving up a drama that brings "closure" to the families of victims. It's difficult to say that because it sounds heartless and lacking in compassion for victims. But it's true.
Is prison simply a place to lock away a human until they die? Or, is prison a place that tries to rehabilitate person who has wronged society? I don't know Ms. Clark and her crimes were horrible. However, she appears to have been rehabilitated. So it comes to this, are we just paying lip service to the rehabilitation aspect or not?
40
Raise those who were killed by her doings and all will be forgiven. Until them she stays put!
1
Are you kidding me? 35 years lessens the pain of the lives of the innocents lost? Now this criminal wants the government she hoped to over throw through a guerrilla uprising to grant her leniency? You can't unring a bell.
9
"We all make mistakes." Like hers? I don't even care what her political affiliation is. The vast majority of us do not make a mistake of that magnitude and I would like to see it stay that way by using her and others as an example.
7
This whole "using her as an example" is total nonsense. You think a brainwashed 22 year old is going to think about her and say "Oh, well, I better not do that, because look what happened to her."? I wonder if it's possible to send people to prison for self-righteousness.....
1
She was 31, not brainwashed, and knew that it was possible that someone would get killed as a result of the actions she was participating in that day. SC, go to a country where there is no punishment for killing. Try Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, for example. What is life like, there? Why do you think so many young people are desperate to escape?
2
When you commit a felony and someone is killed during that felony, then you are responsible for commiting a felony murder and the sentence for murder applies to you. She knew what she was doing. Her daughter as quoted, "My mother did not kill anyone..." is not recognizing that felony murder equates to murder.
7
There is no reason for her to be released. She ought to serve the whole term. This article is slanted. She is referred to as a young woman at the time of the crime. Young people are sent to prison all the time for crimes including murder. Whether she pulled the trigger or not, she showed no remorse for those that died. Then we are shown her with her two doggies smiling, But what is most obvious, she is white. How many times have you shown the photo a black person convicted of armed robbery and murder smiling with their two doggies. Not one word of this article is spent on the impact on the families of the dead. The is not news. This is a part of the promotion program to get a white woman out of jail, Thank goodness the parole board knew better.better.
8
She showed no remorse at the time, but she has shown remorse many times since, even wardens have said so. If you're going to post, at least take the time to be accurate.
4
I thought the same thing: What's with the dog photo? How about a photo of the officers' bloodied corpses?
She still denies responsibility, that's why she needs to remain inside.
She still denies responsibility, that's why she needs to remain inside.
4
She has many times fully accepted her responsibility and has repeatedly expressed profound remorse.
The committee made the right decision. She needs to remain in jail. The woman shares responsibility with the actual triggermen. That gang committed a horrendous crime and there is no reason to forget that. I'm glad to learn that she realizes the errors of her youth. But she still has blood on her hands - and the passage of time does not change that.
4
But it's OK for the actual murderer to have freedom? And what of the forgiveness that the bible teaches us, especially in the new testament? Are we not a christian society? And if we are, are we only to pick and choose the verses of revenge to follow, and throw away the verse of forgiveness? If that is what you believe, then you are no better that the radicals that preach the hate such as ISIS, Boko Haram, or Al-Qaeda that incites the violence we are seeing daily around the world. The Conservatives are always talking about how our country is built on christian beliefs, but the Conservatives are not very christian.
4
With all due respect, we're not a "christian nation." We're a republic with laws. Hopefully, fair laws. Your decision to lump me in with ISIS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda makes zero sense. You really ought not toss around personal invective and pay more attention to the facts. I'm not calling for Clark's execution or her torture. But she committed a heinous crime and ought to be held accountable for her actions.
Oh, by the way, I'm anything but a Conservative.
Oh, by the way, I'm anything but a Conservative.
3
Excellent points. I wish more people in this country with a preponderance of citizens who profess to be Christians would see and say this.
Our leaders and elites very livelihood. their property, and sometimes even their lives, depend on the loyalty of their security forces. Of course anyone who messes with them must be severely punished. The well-heeled members of the parole board understand this. I'm surprised that people are surprisd, but then again most people are unaware that a majority of Americans supported the extra-judicial executions of student protestors in the sixties and seventies. And most of them were white!
Given this a special and heartfelt shout out to Gov. Cuomo and the many members of the New York City Bar Association for their acts of mercy and understanding (and willingness to be class traitors). Unfortunately, there are few of their character and integrity in our ruling classes and their courtiers.
Given this a special and heartfelt shout out to Gov. Cuomo and the many members of the New York City Bar Association for their acts of mercy and understanding (and willingness to be class traitors). Unfortunately, there are few of their character and integrity in our ruling classes and their courtiers.
3
What Judith Clark did was obviously very wrong, but sh did NOT murder people.
2
Somewhere I read "A culture that examines its own violence is a culture that's on the road to getting healthy." There is not a violent bone in Judith Clark's body, and the Parole Board had to see that after the hours they spent with her, yet they denied her release. So yes, the board "elevated calls for interminable punishment" and made a mockery of their own purpose and rehabilitation, denied society all she could offer at-risk-youths, and made our already unhealthy culture even more unhealthy.
6
If there is not a "violent bone in her body," then she wouldn't have taken part in a violent murder.
5
Firstly that was 36 years ago, and secondly and more importantly she was not a shooter in the crime--those people have been released. Is that justice? No, it is unthinking vengeance.
1
Cuomo could have immediately released her, but he lacked the political courage to do so. With the 2020 election looming, the last thing Cuomo needed was to have released a killer. As many have said, this woman should remain in the system.
3
The parole system is arbitrary and selective and the Clark case is a good example. With Governor Cuomo's support, you might think it improved her chances for parole, but parole can be political and like the rest of the criminal justice system, good legal representation costs a lot of money--in time and legal briefs.
Ms. Clark was arrested along with Kathy Boudin, paroled in 2003. Both served time at Bedford Hills and became model inmates--began adult education programs and worked with AIDS patients. Clark received her Bachelors degree while in prison and participated in writing groups and has been training guide dogs. Both serve as examples of what the rehabilitative nature of incarceration should be.
Boudin, however, had access to expensive legal representation during the Brinks trial which helped her plea bargain a better sentence and also later helped her case with the parole board.
Clark's legal representation at trial or at parole were never the same. That's why Boudin has been out and by the way, leading a productive life, contributing to society and an adjunct professor at Columbia University.
The purpose of incarceration should be to rehabilitate individuals and provide them a second chance.
Boudin has been given that chance. Clark should have been, also.
We have a broken criminal justice system and the parole system is in need of repair.
Ms. Clark was arrested along with Kathy Boudin, paroled in 2003. Both served time at Bedford Hills and became model inmates--began adult education programs and worked with AIDS patients. Clark received her Bachelors degree while in prison and participated in writing groups and has been training guide dogs. Both serve as examples of what the rehabilitative nature of incarceration should be.
Boudin, however, had access to expensive legal representation during the Brinks trial which helped her plea bargain a better sentence and also later helped her case with the parole board.
Clark's legal representation at trial or at parole were never the same. That's why Boudin has been out and by the way, leading a productive life, contributing to society and an adjunct professor at Columbia University.
The purpose of incarceration should be to rehabilitate individuals and provide them a second chance.
Boudin has been given that chance. Clark should have been, also.
We have a broken criminal justice system and the parole system is in need of repair.
9
Is she getting sympathy because, other than her involvement in the murder she fits the profile of a typical democrat, an older single mother who is left leaning in her politics. Would Cuomo and others have the same sympathy for a white nationalist who has spent 30+ years in prison and reformed himself?
26
You guys just can't put these pointless assumptions down, can you? Look, you've got Your Stud in the White House now; why don't you spend your time and efforts in making certain that he actually does what he said he was going to do during the campaign instead on harping about "Democrats" all of the time?
5
Her politics should play no role in consideration of her sentence or in determining whether she should be paroled. I'm very far left leaning, but there's left leaning and violent, and then there's left leaning and nonviolent. I don't care for the emphasis on draconian punishment in the American justice system overall, but when I'm considering what the sentence should be for murder, I don't care whether the person was acting out of simple senseless callous disregard for human life or whether she believed herself to be working for a Great Noble Leftist Cause. Murder is murder; not all left-leaning politics is murderous, not by a long shot.
4
Judith Clark was a communist who grew up in a communist household and spent part of her childhood in the Soviet Union. At the time of the Brinks robbery, she was as May 19th Communist Organization, which allied itself with members of the Black Liberation Army to stage the robbery.
1
And the police wonder why so many think of them as bullies. Because by and large, they are.
For Petes sakeMr. Cummings, set her free.
For Petes sakeMr. Cummings, set her free.
15
Let her go? You are out of your mind lefty!
1
Where is your sympathy for those who died?
2
Would Shiloh feel the same way if it were his uncle or father who was killed?
3
Mr Cuomo always sucking up to the extreme left, Ms Clark was involved in the killing of three people who's family and children will grow up without them. This was no petty crime if they weren't caught how many more people do you think they may have killed? Ms Clark and the other wanted to over throw the Government with what ever means possible including robbers, arson, and the killing innocent people.
14
Someone needs to explain to Clark's lawyer and daughter the concept of "felony murder": Someone who commits a felony during which a murder occurs is guilty of murder. Clark and her "associates," as the Times euphemistically refers to them, should have been executed decades ago.
25
No, they shouldn't have been executed...but, they're where they should be.
1
Judith Clark was never charged with a capital crime. In fact, in no state of the United States would the acts committed by Ms. Clark make her eligible for the death penalty. (See: Enmund v. Florida; Tison v. Arizona.)
2
Someone needs to explain to you the difference between getaway driver verse being the trigger man.
2
How soon,l and how fortunate for Clark, that we forget that the only standing tenet of the death penatly for along time was for killing a police officer. She's lucky she gets to live in a Westchester cage instead of a Rockland box.
13
I think I might rather "live" in a Rockland box.
The article hardly touches on the crime she committed, that she was with a terrorist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, or reveals the human cost by detailing the lives that were lost and families left behind. Instead it provides apologies for her -- she made a mistake, like we all do, like all the readers here have murdered three people. And then there's Jesus. How about the names of the public servants she murdered? What happened to their families without a husband and father? Just a mistake, no big deal.
21
As a former SDS member and anti-War activist, this ex-Radical's heart does not bleed. This upper-class White woman knew the risks of engaging in direct action. In fact, Unlike other White privileged activists, especially the lunatic Weather group, she was unable to leverage her White privilege to either avoid criminal prosecution or, if apprehended, tried and convicted, were treated more leniently than their African-American counterparts. Clark and her confederates wanted to bring the "War" home. And she, like the three working class men murdered, is one of the casualties of that stupid "War."
18
The governor is a smart cookie. He doesn't outright grant her a pardon, but commutes the sentence so so she can come up for parole. Whether he really wanted her to be set free I seriously don't know. In his mind it was a win win politically for him and the way left political agenda.
As to Ms. Clarke herself, she was given a life sentence without parole (which means nothing) and apparently enough freedom to do what many commenters here call good works the show she has been rehabilitated. That in itself along with the ability of her family to see, hear and speak with her shows mercy, no mercy was shown the dead men who her associates and herself all had parts in killing (read how the executed them laying on the ground). The children of the dead never get to see, hear and speak to their loved ones. Clarke was 31 years old, had an infant daughter but still decided to help commit an armed robbery and possibly murder. These people were heavily armed with bullet proof vests and assault weapons. What she didn't think there was a chance that someone wouldn't be killed? She should consider herself lucky and just keep doing what she's doing IN PRISON where she belongs.
As for Kathy Boudin who was paroled. Now there is someone who should have gotten the death penalty. The fact she is employed as a college professor is beyond disgusting.
Judith Clarke aided and abetted murders.
As to Ms. Clarke herself, she was given a life sentence without parole (which means nothing) and apparently enough freedom to do what many commenters here call good works the show she has been rehabilitated. That in itself along with the ability of her family to see, hear and speak with her shows mercy, no mercy was shown the dead men who her associates and herself all had parts in killing (read how the executed them laying on the ground). The children of the dead never get to see, hear and speak to their loved ones. Clarke was 31 years old, had an infant daughter but still decided to help commit an armed robbery and possibly murder. These people were heavily armed with bullet proof vests and assault weapons. What she didn't think there was a chance that someone wouldn't be killed? She should consider herself lucky and just keep doing what she's doing IN PRISON where she belongs.
As for Kathy Boudin who was paroled. Now there is someone who should have gotten the death penalty. The fact she is employed as a college professor is beyond disgusting.
Judith Clarke aided and abetted murders.
18
Clark was a member of the May 19th Communist Organization, which joined forces with members of the Black Liberation Army to stage the Brinks Robbery. Clark’s group didn’t take part in the robbery itself, but drove the two getaway vehicles—a U-Haul truck and a Honda—which were stationed in a nearby parking lot. During the trial, they contended they were fighting for the liberation and self-determination of black people and that the killings were justified because the victims interfered with the “appropriation” of money due black people as slavery reparations for slavery. However, one of the May 19th members, Kathy Boudin, plea bargained and received a lighter sentence. She was released in 2003.
4
Thank you for this succinct and coherent summary.
I guess the kind of comments given here go a long way in understanding the unfortunate decision of the parole board.
13
If history is any guide, when she does get out, her terrorist acts will entitle her to a faculty appointment at an Ivy League college.
14
This is a perfect example of the need for the death penalty. The judge and jury thought they were sending her away for 75 years, the rest of her life. Now come liberal, bleeding-heart politicians trying to get her out of jail 40 years early.
11
If a parole board can not recognize the positive outcomes of rehabilitation on such a prisoner as Judith Clark with her impeccable prison record, then who will the board ever recognize as rehabilitated? It makes you wonder if the board actually supports a restorative role for incarceration or if for them it's just about pure punishment forever.
16
Parole board was strongly ifluenced by the Fraternal Order of Police, which officially endorsed Trump in the election. Can we please do the opposite of what Trump and his supporters recommend?
6
Actually, no. The Fraternal Order of Police is not in New York. It is based in Washington, DC and represents such cities as Philadelphia and other major municipalities but not NYC. The New York unions by and large are not members of the FOP -- and none of the five NYPD unions are members of the FOP; they are all completely independent unions. The counties involved here are not represented by the FOP. And the NYC police unions did not endorse Trump. For political lobbying, they are members of NAPO, the National Association of Police Organizations in DC, which did NOT endorse anyone for President this time around. Please do your homework before weighing in on a subject you clearly know nothing about. This case has nothing to do with Trump: he was a kid when this incident happened. None of this is political at all. It's about real working class people and real blood and real brotherhood and real loss. It's not about you, either.
2
In this age of Trump-Sanders hate, Judith Clark counts as a great American.
She should be in the White House.
The guards who were killed was unfortunate, but I'm sure they would otherwise become agents of the Trump hate machine.
She should be in the White House.
The guards who were killed was unfortunate, but I'm sure they would otherwise become agents of the Trump hate machine.
1
That is an unconscionable post.
6
Hey, instead of predicting what people who've been dead for 35 years would do, why don't you just tell us the winning Powerball numbers?
1
Gov. Cuomo should grant her immediate release! Enough is enough-this woman has been imprisoned for 35 years and is a model prisoner. What purpose is achieved by keeping this woman in prison other than revenge?
12
She should be released as soon as the dead people are brought back to life.
11
How about punishment-THREE people were killed, remember?
2
You sound like a christian, Bill.
Black Lives Matter should be pleased they have played a significant role in the parole board's decision. Normal people are much more concerned about the safety of law enforcement officers since the "War on Police" began.
6
Cuomo played it from both ends thus avoiding full responsibility. Cuomo is a coward.
10
She was a part of a terrorist organization and directly involved in a plot that resulted in the deaths of law enforcement officers, and at her trial seemed positively giddy about it. She is going to die in prison, as she should.
13
Wow, the fault of doing things on the spur of the moment thinking.
Just think what she could have done if she'd just gone to school and became a Wall Streeter and she could have 'stolen' that much money legally and if anyone died because of their losing their 'vast wealth', it would have been their fault.
Just think what she could have done if she'd just gone to school and became a Wall Streeter and she could have 'stolen' that much money legally and if anyone died because of their losing their 'vast wealth', it would have been their fault.
13
She's not in jail because she stole money. She's in jail because she helped kill three people. The comments here are incredibly disconnected from the case.
3
Whether or not one believes that Ms. Clark should be release or not can be debated forever. But, what is for sure is the cruel and unusual punishment that the Governor inflicted on Ms. Clark by dangling false hope of a potential release is totally wrong, and without a doubt a truly weaselly politician move. Be a man, Governor, either pardon her or say she will never get out on your watch. Stop torturing Ms. Clark.
15
The article references another article that states Mutulu Shakur is free. Is that accurate? There are other media sources from after the linked article that indicate Mr. Shakur's appeal was denied and that he will be released in 2024.
1
"Mr. Cuomo .. could have chosen to commute her sentence... Instead, he chose to simply make her eligible for parole."
Seems like a cowardly political move, he has the power to set her free but would rather take the symbolism and leave the hard part to others.
Seems like a cowardly political move, he has the power to set her free but would rather take the symbolism and leave the hard part to others.
4
I don't care whether Ms. Clark is rehabilitated or not, nor do I care whether she is sorry or not. I lost a young family member to a senseless murder in cold blood - very similar to this. The young man who actually pulled the trigger received the death penalty. The other two young men who were in the car, did not pull the trigger, but could have stopped the action or not taken part at all, were sentenced to life with no parole. I am perfectly comfortable with that result. I don't care how rehabilitated those two young men become, or how sorry they are in later years. I'll be at each and every parole hearing to make sure they never get out of prison, whether the Governor of that state decides to voice his opinion on the matter or not.
18
With police officers being shot and killed on a daily basis, yesterday 5 were shot, society needs to make a statement that we stand on the side of the law. Yes, perhaps it is unfair to her but there is the larger issue of the message that is sent to the police and to violent criminals. And the fact that she was only a driver does not mitigate her role in a very violent crime.
8
Once again, we are the outliers of the civilized world in our approach to punishment. "Victim impact statements" are a travesty of justice. They imply that if a murder victim did NOT have close friends and family who can make such statements, then it was somehow less awful they get got murdered. How can such a thing be allowed?
Justice should never be based on swaying emotions, but on evidence and reasoning, otherwise there ins't even a pretense of justice being blind. The parole board here got to hear from the kids of a murdered cop, but what if that cop had had no kids or family? No one to make "impact statements" on their behalf?
And why do we consistently have the most Draconian sentences in the civilized world? What do they accomplish, other than to placate those who are understandably furious and hurt by the loss? Overcrowded prisons, social and family decimation....
Justice should never be based on swaying emotions, but on evidence and reasoning, otherwise there ins't even a pretense of justice being blind. The parole board here got to hear from the kids of a murdered cop, but what if that cop had had no kids or family? No one to make "impact statements" on their behalf?
And why do we consistently have the most Draconian sentences in the civilized world? What do they accomplish, other than to placate those who are understandably furious and hurt by the loss? Overcrowded prisons, social and family decimation....
4
I think you may be confusing "justice" with "mercy." Justice would be conforming to the law under which she was convicted and sentenced. Mercy would be a reduction or commutation of that sentence based on other circumstances. Her good works and rehabilitation in prison may be points in favor of mercy, while victims impact statements may point against. In this case, it appears that the magnitude of the crime and the lasting effects on the victims of that crime outweighed the pluses for her parole. Good decision by the parole board!
4
It's difficult to find sympathy for a person complicit in the murder of three people, two of which were public servants responding to the call of duty. How does rehabilitation mitigate the fact she expunged the futures of three people? Is it only because she's alive and can tell her story while the victims are dead and have no stories to tell? What would their lives have been like had Ms. Clark and her compatriots not murdered them? This was all a matter of choice on the part of Ms. Clark. That’s why we have life without parole. Yes, I have sympathy for her but what she did was unforgivable.
14
I think that much of the confusion and conflict results from people conflating two separate issues. One is the nature and seriousness of the crime, the recognition and remorse of the criminal, which led to a sentence of a certain length.
The second is the opportunity we provide to enable these people to become better citizens and achieve something meaningful with their lives within the context of their life circumstance, which may be extended or even lifelong incarceration.
A Richard Speck or Charles Manson might become model human beings, and thereby achieve value, self respect and self worth that transforms them, but they should never again live outside prison walls.
As to the fact that different participants in the crime received different sentences, this is the nature of our justice system. To institute uniform sentences for specific crimes would emasculate the courts, and by taking away discretion, result in far more injustice than we have now.
The second is the opportunity we provide to enable these people to become better citizens and achieve something meaningful with their lives within the context of their life circumstance, which may be extended or even lifelong incarceration.
A Richard Speck or Charles Manson might become model human beings, and thereby achieve value, self respect and self worth that transforms them, but they should never again live outside prison walls.
As to the fact that different participants in the crime received different sentences, this is the nature of our justice system. To institute uniform sentences for specific crimes would emasculate the courts, and by taking away discretion, result in far more injustice than we have now.
According to this article, the Parole Board decision in Judith Clark’s case was heavily influenced by the law enforcement unions and their Republican allies in the State Senate. Victims’ families or police organizations should not be given a veto power over parole decisions. The parole board decisions should be determined by set procedures and policies that are applied uniformly to all cases. The only way to see if an injustice has been committed is to see how similar cases were handled in the past. Everyone, including cop killers, corrupt politicians, and pedophiles, should have equal protection under the law.
5
Police unions and police families have the same rights to testify as EVERYONE ELSE. They have no more power ... but they should have no less. The parole board in ALL cases weighs the written testimony of everyone who responds. The article was quite one-sided. There was virtually no representation in this article of the 35 years the friends, families, and colleagues of the victims had the endure, was there?
2
Parole Board made a mistake. They should have released her. Law enforcement isn't under siege by getaway drivers.
3
Ms. Clark and her cohorts claimed to have been offended by the discrimination and injustices perpetrated on minorities, particularly against African Americans, and ready to fight for justice and fairness by planting the seed of violent revolution. But the facts are that she was an accomplice to the murder of three innocent individuals including Waverly Brown, an African American police officer.
After being shot several times, and while he lay on the ground terribly wounded, one of the accomplices approached him and emptied his weapon into officer Brown. So much for revolutionary ideals and defending minorities.
At her trial, with respect to those events, Ms. Clark expressed no remorse telling the jury that revolutionary violence was a “liberating force.” However, within the context of the events that occurred, what Ms. Clark was really saying to the jury was that murder was a liberating force. Essentially, Ms Clark is a two bit terrorist. That will never change.
Has she rehabbed herself? Maybe so. Is that a reason to let her out? Possibly but until recently parole was not legally a consideration. So, it is not surprising that she has been denied at the first opportunity. Good behavior and good deeds are good arguments. In the meantime, given the possibility of freedom, Ms. Clark should revisit what it means to believe in "liberating forces" and be prepared to discuss that very concept with a parole board.
After being shot several times, and while he lay on the ground terribly wounded, one of the accomplices approached him and emptied his weapon into officer Brown. So much for revolutionary ideals and defending minorities.
At her trial, with respect to those events, Ms. Clark expressed no remorse telling the jury that revolutionary violence was a “liberating force.” However, within the context of the events that occurred, what Ms. Clark was really saying to the jury was that murder was a liberating force. Essentially, Ms Clark is a two bit terrorist. That will never change.
Has she rehabbed herself? Maybe so. Is that a reason to let her out? Possibly but until recently parole was not legally a consideration. So, it is not surprising that she has been denied at the first opportunity. Good behavior and good deeds are good arguments. In the meantime, given the possibility of freedom, Ms. Clark should revisit what it means to believe in "liberating forces" and be prepared to discuss that very concept with a parole board.
9
The article doesn't identify Judith Clark's remorse, or explanation of her present attitudes. Are they different than when she committed the crime? I don't see that here. It is a very incomplete article without that. Droning on about what a model prisoner she is without that doesn't indicate that she is no longer a threat to society. Dragging in the recently dead Breslin is fatuous.
7
I agree the article does seem to assume that the reader will be of the mindset that all these old hippie radical types have surely seen the error of their ways over time. It's almost like the "family photo from 2014" is intended to stand in for such argumentation. In the photo, she could be any middle-aged, tending towards elderly, upper middle class white woman. She seems fond of dogs ... obviously she's no longer a crazy flaming radical - right?
Then there's the somewhat ambiguous statement that "Ms. Clark has said it was not until she was locked away that she came to know herself." What exactly she knows about herself, isn't specified.
Perhaps she is entirely repentant and has nothing in common with her (so to speak) bomb-throwing younger self, but the article is weak on this point.
Then there's the somewhat ambiguous statement that "Ms. Clark has said it was not until she was locked away that she came to know herself." What exactly she knows about herself, isn't specified.
Perhaps she is entirely repentant and has nothing in common with her (so to speak) bomb-throwing younger self, but the article is weak on this point.
4
The are three articles listed in Related Coverage at the end of the story.
I recommend the 1/12/12 article in the Times Magazine for a better sense of Clark: who she was and who she has become.
I recommend the 1/12/12 article in the Times Magazine for a better sense of Clark: who she was and who she has become.
1
The end of the article implies that Judith Clarke's daughter Harriet is not an 'affected party' and goes on to mention a police detective who supposedly is, but gives no indication of his relationship to the case, other than that he's law enforcement. I fail to understand how the daughter is not an affected party. She lost her mother. If the detective was actually at the scene at the time of the crime, then the article should have mentioned that. Otherwise, it just comes off as pro-police state propaganda.
5
He was at the scene where the two other officers were murdered. He was wounded but fortunately it was more of a graze. There could be more authoritative, in-depth and clear reporting.
It really doesn't matter whether or not Ms Clark is a public threat today or that she has been a model prisoner.
She was found guilty in the deaths of three men and sentenced to a 75 year minimum. She is being punished for her role in the murders of the three and the grief she and her cohorts inflicted on the families of those three men.
Murder is murder. There is no "un-do" button and more people should realize that reality.
She was found guilty in the deaths of three men and sentenced to a 75 year minimum. She is being punished for her role in the murders of the three and the grief she and her cohorts inflicted on the families of those three men.
Murder is murder. There is no "un-do" button and more people should realize that reality.
13
What on earth is the point of continuing to incarcerate a 67-year-old whose crime has been mostly forgotten? Sure, punish her at the time, but now? Seriously?
3
I can completely assure you her crime has not been forgotten by the families of the men whose lives she helped bring to a brutal end.
Honestly. I am a far left leaning, bleeding heart liberal from way back - and even I am grossed out by some of these mindless replies. Can you even for a moment put yourselves in the place of one of their family members, imagine you are one of these men's sons or daughters, you are reading this article and hearing readers opine that the murder of their father is now "mostly forgotten"???? Appalling heartlessness.
Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of lengthy sentences for the point of lengthy sentences, and I believe there are people languishing in prison who should probably be released. But when you argue that a murderer should be set free because her crime is "mostly forgotten," you are seriously not helping matters one bit.
Honestly. I am a far left leaning, bleeding heart liberal from way back - and even I am grossed out by some of these mindless replies. Can you even for a moment put yourselves in the place of one of their family members, imagine you are one of these men's sons or daughters, you are reading this article and hearing readers opine that the murder of their father is now "mostly forgotten"???? Appalling heartlessness.
Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of lengthy sentences for the point of lengthy sentences, and I believe there are people languishing in prison who should probably be released. But when you argue that a murderer should be set free because her crime is "mostly forgotten," you are seriously not helping matters one bit.
4
The case has not been forgotten by any of the 500,000 members of the American law enforcement community. They remember their line of duty dead every single day.
1
Whether you consider a prison sentence punishment or rehabilitation, what will 40 years in prison accomplish that 35 years could not?
1
She received a 75 year MINIMUM sentence.
What word here suggested that 35 years later it could be disregarded as too long. Actions have consequences. End of story.
What word here suggested that 35 years later it could be disregarded as too long. Actions have consequences. End of story.
5
35 years x $50,000 annually to house one inmate in New York State =...(add your own adjective).
11
So how much exactly were those cops lives worth in your estimation? Ms. Clark may have just been the driver, but she was a key part of a crime that resulted in the death of a guard and two police officers.
4
So what would you propose we do with someone who participated in three murders?
3
Worth every penny.
interesting.. and Racist? Kathy Boudin in a similar position and responsible for the deaths of police men was paroled in 2003. WikiP People in most cases are sent to the house for far too long.
2
Racist? Boudin and Clark are both Caucasians. Or are you suggesting anti-Semitism? In any event, they were both culpable in the three deaths arising from this crime, including 2 police officers> In the robbery immediately preceding this, which Boudin did not participate, another armored car guard was murdered. Boudin is out because her father was a well-connected lawyer who affected a plea deal. The local prosecutor, sensing that the public had no appetite for a $5 million (in 1983 $) trial, accepted the deal. Hindsight is 20/20 but he reasonably decided that Boudin would be an unlikely candidate for early parole. However, taking the tact which Clark would emulate, Boudin got an advanced degree and ran programs to educate/assist fellow inmates. The Parole Board twice denied her parole before capitulating, which is a likely outcome for Clark. Clark got her richly deserved 75 year sentence because she, like Boudin's lover David Gilbert, decided to represent herself in court. Clark challenged the legality of this about a decade ago, and lost that one in court as well.
3
In what way was this racist? She participated in murders of both white and African-American people. She was an equal opportunity felon.
1
There is no simple answer. If prison is primarily meant for rehabilitation then it would appear that Clark is ready for release. But as the article describes there are other stakeholders, such as law enforcement officers, family of the victims as well as "ordinary" citizens claiming going either for compassion, clemency, revenge, punishment or sending a message to other (potential) criminals and terrorists.
Each of these arguments has merits, but if compassion plays a role, where was Clark's compassion 35 years ago ?
Each of these arguments has merits, but if compassion plays a role, where was Clark's compassion 35 years ago ?
27
If you are going down that road...where was the compassion around whatever events or situations caused her to be radicalized in the first place?
1
A mistake is when you put sugar in the salt shaker. While you intended to fill the salt shaker, you did not intend to put sugar in it. Mistakes usually happen when one is not paying attention to what one is doing. Deciding to participate in an armed robbery, even as as getaway driver, with the full awareness that someone may be seriously injured, or be killed, is not a mistake. Ms. Clark knew exactly what she and her accomplices set out to do, and she was a voluntary participant. For her actions, there are consequences. Because three people were murdered, the consequences are severe. It may be that she dies in prison, but that is what her actions merit.
64
I don't think she's ever expressed remorse for putting that sugar in that salt shaker...
1
This was not a minor drug offense. This was not a crime of passion. This prisoner expressed no remorse at her trial after she had had time to contemplate the loss of life resulting from her crime. She may be able to obtain forgiveness from some but the law is about crime and punishment.
34
She is 67 yrs old, did more public service than many I know. And a mother. Her prison cost could go to placing many on huge digital data of Parole Law Enforcement. And have "Face to Face" for set time period.
Some back then felt war as some now call for war.
Some back then felt war as some now call for war.
10
If the state of New York can afford to keep young (mostly minority) adults in jail for drug offenses, then it can afford to keep an elderly white lady in jail for participating in a crime that left two police officers and a guard dead.
Its great that she has used her jail time for public service, but that does not sufficiently mitigate the fact that her actions contributed to the death of those protecting the public.
I'm pretty sure we could find people in jail who deserve release and who have not been involved in crimes that killed 3 people. Lets start there.
Its great that she has used her jail time for public service, but that does not sufficiently mitigate the fact that her actions contributed to the death of those protecting the public.
I'm pretty sure we could find people in jail who deserve release and who have not been involved in crimes that killed 3 people. Lets start there.
4
What exactly was her public service?
2
She willingly and actively pursued this crime, even though she had a young daughter. How about the many young men in prison for less then her. Do you expect leniency for them because they might be fathers? She has not done 'public service', that is done by people willingly, not by prison inmates. That she became a 'model prisoner' is of little consequence, IMHO, because it happened too late to stop her participation in a cold blooded terrorist attack. She wanted to start a war and overturn a democratic country. She failed.
3
Poor woman being imprisoned just because all she did was participate in a crime that led to two innocent people being murdered. What a shame!
21
It was three dead people. My apologies. But what's one more dead person when talking about the glories of forgiveness?
2
We need to reconsider the concept of lengthy torture to make the victims of crime feel better. Is it true that the person we are torturing today is the same person that acted years ago? If not then it is crazy.
16
Imprisonment for murder is not torture.
4
I am totally in favor of forgiveness and recognition of good service in prison.
What bothers me is this: Would a black prisoner sentenced on questionable grounds get the same attention and relief?
I don't like seeing this woman treated unfairly just because so many thousands of others are also treated unfairly...but. We have a system of mass incarceration in which thousands and thousands of people are doomed to long, often indefinite imprisonment simply because of their skin color and socioeconomic status.
When you are white, you get special treatment. When you aren't, you don't.
When you are poor, you get nothing. Just look at the men they are trying to (and are) kill in Arkansas right now.
This system is random and unjust.
What bothers me is this: Would a black prisoner sentenced on questionable grounds get the same attention and relief?
I don't like seeing this woman treated unfairly just because so many thousands of others are also treated unfairly...but. We have a system of mass incarceration in which thousands and thousands of people are doomed to long, often indefinite imprisonment simply because of their skin color and socioeconomic status.
When you are white, you get special treatment. When you aren't, you don't.
When you are poor, you get nothing. Just look at the men they are trying to (and are) kill in Arkansas right now.
This system is random and unjust.
12
That one may see some as being mistreated does not mean one can't sp-eak out against another for being mistreated. Forgiveness is fine but that doesn't mean let go. Three died, their punishment is for eternity. By the way, of the 8 that Arkansas is trying to execute, 4 are white. Yes money has much to do with lawyering up. How else could it work? If I am wealthy have I not the right to hire a lawyer costing more with a better win record for my kid who may be accused of a crime? What is the alternative? Just put all lawyer's names in a bowl and have a lottery as to whom each accused may get? YES success brings bigger houses, more vacations, more expensive autos along with the access to supposedly better lawyers. Success and the striving for it, is what makes America great and the most successful country in the world. It is much of the rest of the world that basks in the shadow of America's success, be it with our military protection, our advances in technology etc. What country does more for charity? We sent help for the earthquakes in Iran, a terrorist nation. They did what as to our hurricanes, tornadoes etc? Its not the other way around as to the world helping us. "When you are poor, you get nothing." Please YOU best see how the poor live in other parts of the world. We have no refugee camps or poor sifting through dumps for food. Is there no access to some healthcare in the US for the poor? See what the poor get in the Sudan. Could it be better, YES, but it ain't so bad.
4
She is white and didn't get out. What are you talking about? OJ Simpson is black and got away with murder? Give me a break, but what he didn't get away with was his money. Money is the most powerful thing in America; get with the program, Asian.
19
At least Judith Clark's crew gave no one special treatment on that faithful day. They killed both black and white men without any prejudice. Their allies the Black Liberation Army sought out and assassinated interracial NYPD partners. Partners Foster and Laurie and partners Piagentini and Jones were ambushed and murdered to make their point. Nice folks.
3
The Board has displayed Solomonic Wisdom in its decision. Punitive action is absolutely necessary to carry out justice for the deceased, their families and for any future "would be" murderers and those who provide material support and assistance in murder.
14
Read the words below of the son of the man killed all those years ago.
And then everyone else please shut up.
This is not your business.
Stay out of it.
"In an email on Friday, Edward J. O’Grady III, the son of the slain officer, said that he was still processing the news. He called his father a hero and said he felt the pain of his loss every day. But, he said, “the release of Judith Clark will take no more away from me and will bring no more hurt to my life.”
He also wrote about Ms. Clark’s daughter, Harriet, a lecturer at Stanford, who was 11 months old when her mother was arrested. “She did no more to deserve her lot than my sisters and I did to deserve ours,” he wrote. “If it brings an end to the suffering that Harriet has to deal with every day, then perhaps I can be happy for both of them, and I can assure you, I’ll still be able to sleep at night.”"
And then everyone else please shut up.
This is not your business.
Stay out of it.
"In an email on Friday, Edward J. O’Grady III, the son of the slain officer, said that he was still processing the news. He called his father a hero and said he felt the pain of his loss every day. But, he said, “the release of Judith Clark will take no more away from me and will bring no more hurt to my life.”
He also wrote about Ms. Clark’s daughter, Harriet, a lecturer at Stanford, who was 11 months old when her mother was arrested. “She did no more to deserve her lot than my sisters and I did to deserve ours,” he wrote. “If it brings an end to the suffering that Harriet has to deal with every day, then perhaps I can be happy for both of them, and I can assure you, I’ll still be able to sleep at night.”"
115
Remember others who lost family say "keep her in." Yes sad for Ms Clark's daughter, but Ms Clark chose the road that put her daughter in this position. By your logic perhaps Ms Clark shouldn't have been locked up to begin with since even 2 years would have been punishment for her daughter as to an important time in her daughter's life. You just happen to have chosen a victim who agrees with you as to quoting, but there is another side expressed by more victims. That a victim didn't get the chance to push a button for the electric chair is reward enough for Ms Clark. Ms Clark today, Charles Manson tomorrow?
13
Sorry, but I can't agree that the rest of us should shut up and accept that this matter is none of our business.
Reconciliation between the people involved is none of our business, but justice is everybody's business. It's not a personal transaction.
Reconciliation between the people involved is none of our business, but justice is everybody's business. It's not a personal transaction.
22
Actually, it is my business, because not only did Clark commit crimes against the THREE people who were callously murdered, she committed crimes against society, of which I am a part. (Recall that at the beginning of trials, the prosecutors say, "I am so-and-so, for THE PEOPLE.) I feel for Mr. O'Grady, but he alone doesn't get to make decisions for the rest of us.
2
Free Leonard Peltier first. And all those who are serving too-long sentences for non-violent drug crimes.
12
This wasn't a non-violence crime.
7
Non-violent is what I mean to write.
Yes, Cat in the Hat, my comment is agreeing with you. I am sickened by the rate and length of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes and other non-violence crimes.
Judith Clark's crime was violent, it was murder. Mercy for her can be considered ONLY after the release of those serving too-long sentences for non-violent crimes. And Leonard Peltier, who did not commit the crime.
Judith Clark's crime was violent, it was murder. Mercy for her can be considered ONLY after the release of those serving too-long sentences for non-violent crimes. And Leonard Peltier, who did not commit the crime.
1
Where were you 35 years ago? I had moved to Portland Oregon 5 years earlier. Since then I would use up all the allowed space saying what I've done.
Judith Clark rotted in cell as a caged animal which many here think is good.
While I oppose the death penalty I also have a real problem with life without parole. With the death penalty humans play god and face it folks we're pretty lousy. Life without parole I would reserve only for the very worse such as Timothy McVeigh. Anyone else should have the option of possible parole such as Judith Clark.
Judith Clark rotted in cell as a caged animal which many here think is good.
While I oppose the death penalty I also have a real problem with life without parole. With the death penalty humans play god and face it folks we're pretty lousy. Life without parole I would reserve only for the very worse such as Timothy McVeigh. Anyone else should have the option of possible parole such as Judith Clark.
16
Wrong. There are people who deserve to never see the light of day as a free person unless they're found to be wrongly convicted.
12
She had the option. The parole was denied.
1
Three dead, law enforcement. What message would be sending? Its not as if some let out don't go out and continue their behavior way too much. If YOU voted YES for parole and that person went out and killed again you would feel how? I think of the three who were let out than went and killed Dr. Petit's wife, killed and raped his two young daughters and burned the house down with bodies in the house. The wife who ran a health center, the oldest daughter to attend Dartmouth that fall, the youngest only 12. Yeah those three all convicted of violent crimes, who had been paroled recently, then went on to killing the Petits, were just misunderstood. Dr Petit condemned the state's decision to abolish the death penalty in August 2015, saying he believed the court had overstepped its powers and urging it to give greater consideration to the "emotional impact, particularly on victims and their loved ones" that death penalty cases generate. Dr Petit's family is dead while their killers remain alive, be it in a punitive situation. I hope they didn't get to watch what they wanted last night on TV and the food tasted real bad. The Petit women, watched nothing and ate nothing.
1
It would seem even the parole board is getting sick and tired of the Liberal Catch and Release game..
She's a murderer. Life. That means the only way she leaves a prison is in a hearse
She's a murderer. Life. That means the only way she leaves a prison is in a hearse
21
And what purpose does that serve after 35 years in prison? Revenge? Rehabilitation? Retribution?
11
Punishment. For the loss of three lives. For which she was a willful participant.
1
Holding her RESPONSIBLE for her actions. Whether you are the getaway driver or gunman makes no difference. The law (felony murder rule) deems both equally culpable. I'm okay with her being up for parole. And the parole board did its job. So she continues to sit in prison. I'm okay with that. This was a violent crime. And I don't support the imposition of differential standards of punishment solely because of gender.
3
I'm reading in the comments that she was 31 when this happened. If that's true, what a slant this article has. It said she was a "young woman" and goes into the details of the crime right after mentioning that she became radicalized at 14. I love the New York Times, but you guys need to strive to keep your journalism unbiased.
36
Lindsey: As much as you would like to believe that all "main stream" is as dishonest and biased as Fox News your example here only demonstrates the ideological fog that you and others on the right live in. The reporter states that she became involved in radical left wing politics as a "young women". The news story does not state that she was a young women at the time of the crime.
1
I agree. Thirty-one years old is not "young" in any sense. Embarrassing.
1
How is it that Clark gets the attention of the Governor while thousands of others do not? Is it her politics, politics or social position connections?
Twenty five years ago, Gov. Mario Cuomo granted clemency to Jean Harris, the prestigious private school headmistress who murdered the Scarsdale Diet author Dr. Herman Tarnower.
Smacks of a 1% class taking care of their own.
Twenty five years ago, Gov. Mario Cuomo granted clemency to Jean Harris, the prestigious private school headmistress who murdered the Scarsdale Diet author Dr. Herman Tarnower.
Smacks of a 1% class taking care of their own.
11
Yeah, we all make mistakes but very few of us can shrug off three murders like they were jay walking tickets.
32
I understand and agree that white privilege is a major problem in this country. So is wealth and connections privilege. So is the absurd and disgusting rate of black incarceration as well as other people of color.
All sentences of a too long length where the person has served years behind bars and is a changed person should be reconsidered. What are we gaining by keeping them there forever?
All sentences of a too long length where the person has served years behind bars and is a changed person should be reconsidered. What are we gaining by keeping them there forever?
8
Aw, what a shame. Andy now loses a voter.
What a sanctimonious comment from that fraud Cuomo about Jesus. Give it up Fraud Boy.
What a sanctimonious comment from that fraud Cuomo about Jesus. Give it up Fraud Boy.
14
To correct writers here:
The murder of two police officers and a security guard is fairly stiff punishment for the victims - don't you think? Duh!!!!!!!!!
Judith Clark, convicted of the murders should have been executed. A cohort of another Weather Underground alumni, Bill Ayers and his wife, close friends of Barack "Let'm Loose" Obama, he of the Democrat/Progressive/Socialist agenda.
The murder of two police officers and a security guard is fairly stiff punishment for the victims - don't you think? Duh!!!!!!!!!
Judith Clark, convicted of the murders should have been executed. A cohort of another Weather Underground alumni, Bill Ayers and his wife, close friends of Barack "Let'm Loose" Obama, he of the Democrat/Progressive/Socialist agenda.
8
35 years behind bars is pretty stiff punishment for the perpetrator. Maybe she could do some good for social Stu in working with younger people to keep them from following in her path.
Ayers and Ohama have nothing to do with this, though Ayers has been teaching youngsters for years to the betterment of the US of A.
Ayers and Ohama have nothing to do with this, though Ayers has been teaching youngsters for years to the betterment of the US of A.
7
Let's see Bill Ayers, radical left attended the same fundraiser as Obama a million years ago and you're still going on about it. Steve Bannon, of the radical right, until recently occupied a seat at the NSC, bet you're ok with that. Hmmmmm, thought so.....
14
I'm no fan of Bannon, but did he work for the violent overthrow of our government? Did he plan to bomb and kill other innocent people? Did Ayers ever apologize for his participation in these terrorist activities? No. Yeah, but Bannon is the real problem. No I don't think so.
1
Her role in this case was not minor. It doesn't matter that she didn't pull the trigger. As a co-conspirator and participant in the armed robbery she's guilty of felony murder. That's the way the law works, and it's a good and just law. Agree to participate in a crime where guns will be used, and you agree to take the consequences if one of those guns goes off. This means she's guilty of murder, not of getaway-car-driving. She is, in a word, a murderer. Whether she's suffered enough as a murderer is, I think, a close question because she's clearly been an exemplary prisoner. But it's important to remember that the cops she helped kill got eternity -- and their survivors got life without parole, imprisoned in their grief.
26
Please do not use the word "Botched" when reporting a Robbery
that ends up killing three people and seriously wounding one more:
Peter Paige was killed and Joseph Trombino was seriously wounded.
Officers Waverly Brown and Edward O'Grady were killed.
It seems highly unlikely that either Mr. Paige or Mr. Trombino on their
low wages paid by Brinks, were oppressors of the Proletariat.
Rather doubtful that Officer Brown or O'Grady were bent on establishing
a "Facist" state in America while serving the Nyack Police Department.
Why didn't Judith Clark think about whom might get killed in the robbery ?
I don't know, she had an odd childhood being taken to the Soviet Union
to live, by her parents from ages 1 to 4, 1950 - 1953, and was involved
in Radical Politics from her teenage years on.
Could she be moved to a Minimum-Security Prison that would allow her to
go and publicly speak on how she became blinded to her cause and how she saw
that the violent path she fell into and chose only led to tragedy ?
that ends up killing three people and seriously wounding one more:
Peter Paige was killed and Joseph Trombino was seriously wounded.
Officers Waverly Brown and Edward O'Grady were killed.
It seems highly unlikely that either Mr. Paige or Mr. Trombino on their
low wages paid by Brinks, were oppressors of the Proletariat.
Rather doubtful that Officer Brown or O'Grady were bent on establishing
a "Facist" state in America while serving the Nyack Police Department.
Why didn't Judith Clark think about whom might get killed in the robbery ?
I don't know, she had an odd childhood being taken to the Soviet Union
to live, by her parents from ages 1 to 4, 1950 - 1953, and was involved
in Radical Politics from her teenage years on.
Could she be moved to a Minimum-Security Prison that would allow her to
go and publicly speak on how she became blinded to her cause and how she saw
that the violent path she fell into and chose only led to tragedy ?
13
Why Cuomo is sticking his nose in this issue is mind boggling. He he runs for higher office, and he will, this will come back to bite him.
9
Ms. Clark, as an adult when she participated in this crime knew the following: her accomplices were armed, the police would try to apprehend them, there could be violence, people could be hurt or killed, lives could be destroyed, they might not even succeed in getting the money, if she was caught there would be a heavy price to pay. Knowing all that she went ahead. People were killed, lives were destroyed, they didn't get the money after all, she got caught. She is paying a price and as far as I'm concerned it still isn't enough.
28
"extraordinary record of achievement and transformation"
If coming to realize that what she did was morally wrong is an "extraordinary record of achievement", then most 10 year olds are eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"impressive self-development over the past 35 years ... she came to know herself"
So 35 years ago, she thought it was unjust to be imprisoned because "revolutionary violence" was right; 35 years later, she thinks that it is unjust to be imprisoned because she "did not kill anyone".
So I must ask: When did she ever think her imprisonment was just?
Between "revolutionary violence" and "I didn't kill anyone", how much has she developed morally? Enough to rejoin society? I wonder.
If coming to realize that what she did was morally wrong is an "extraordinary record of achievement", then most 10 year olds are eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"impressive self-development over the past 35 years ... she came to know herself"
So 35 years ago, she thought it was unjust to be imprisoned because "revolutionary violence" was right; 35 years later, she thinks that it is unjust to be imprisoned because she "did not kill anyone".
So I must ask: When did she ever think her imprisonment was just?
Between "revolutionary violence" and "I didn't kill anyone", how much has she developed morally? Enough to rejoin society? I wonder.
The American justice system is not about justice or rehabilitation. More and more it's also about making money as prisons become run by for profit companies.
Women often get harsher sentences than men. Left-wing women even moreso. Unrepentant left-wing women? No forgiveness in this society.
13
If someone is involved in a crime that kills three people and is unrepentant at the time, don't you think they deserve stiff punishment? Her politics led her to believe that this crime was justified: it was not.
5
Kathy Boudin, who also participated in the same robbery as a getaway driver, hired Leonard Weinglass to defend her. Weinglass, a law partner of Boudin's father, arranged for a plea bargain and Boudin pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery, in exchange for one 20-years-to-life sentence. She was paroled in 2003, and now is a Columbia University professor.
No forgiveness?
No forgiveness?
4
The thought of such a long incarceration is a scary one. It is uplifting to think she has reformed. But on the other hand there is no defense of youth or nievty possible for the actions ad attitude at the time. She was closer to middle age rather than youth..... As an opponent of capital punishment I think it is imperative that violent crime and especially offenses against the representatives of the people are heavily and consistently punished through custodial sentences with limited opportunity for rehabilitation into society - if it can be shown that opinion and assessment offer scientific measure of reform and remorse I might be inclined to change my attitude but until then I cannot leave the thought that the lady might well be reformed but regardless set o'grady and the two others are dead and gone.
4
Keeping her in prison after 35 years isn't going to bring back the lives of the dead victims.
5
No one can bring them back. That's the point. There's no "parole" from their death sentences. And just as Ms. Clark is a living breathing person today, so are the victims' families and all police officers, who look to the justice system to act against those who will elevate interaction with police to the level of intentional murder.
(This isn't about BLM, so no need to reference it here.)
(This isn't about BLM, so no need to reference it here.)
2
Inkblot,
She's where she belongs.
She's where she belongs.
2
To sentence someone to a minimum 75-years in prison is ridicules as see by European standards.
To deny parole after 35-years being served is cruel. And this in a Christian country!
To deny parole after 35-years being served is cruel. And this in a Christian country!
8
This is not a Christian country. This is a secular society. Christian does not automatically mean good.
3
I suppose it's better than having her commit suicide in prison like Baader-Meinhof did. For your information Peter, this is not a Christian country, this is a nation of laws. Regardless of your religion, or lack of one, you are responsible for your actions. When you commit violent crimes then you have to face your consequences. She wished for the violent overthrow of our government. She failed. She helped kill three people, people who had families that loved them, some of whom still grieve today. Yes, we have different standards then Europe, about which I am glad. Hopefully, you will pay dearly for your crime here.
1
Ms. Clark and her cohorts claimed to have been offended by the discrimination and injustices perpetrated on minorities, particularly against African Americans, and ready to fight for justice and fairness by planting the seed of violent revolution. But the facts are that she was an accomplice to the murder of three innocent individuals including Waverly Brown, an African American police officer.
After being shot several times, and while he lay on the ground terribly wounded, one of the accomplices approached him and emptied his weapon into officer Brown. So much for revolutionary ideals and defending minorities.
At her trial, with respect to those events, Ms. Clark expressed no remorse telling the jury that revolutionary violence was a “liberating force.” However, within the context of the events that occurred, what Ms. Clark was really saying to the jury was that murder was a liberating force. Essentially, Ms Clark is a two bit terrorist. That will never change.
Has she rehabbed herself? Maybe so. Is that a reason to let her out? Possibly but until recently parole was not legally a consideration. So, it is not surprising that she has been denied at the first opportunity. Good behavior and good deeds are good arguments. In the meantime, given the possibility of freedom, Ms. Clark should revisit what it means to believe in "liberating forces" and be prepared to discuss that very concept with a parole board.
After being shot several times, and while he lay on the ground terribly wounded, one of the accomplices approached him and emptied his weapon into officer Brown. So much for revolutionary ideals and defending minorities.
At her trial, with respect to those events, Ms. Clark expressed no remorse telling the jury that revolutionary violence was a “liberating force.” However, within the context of the events that occurred, what Ms. Clark was really saying to the jury was that murder was a liberating force. Essentially, Ms Clark is a two bit terrorist. That will never change.
Has she rehabbed herself? Maybe so. Is that a reason to let her out? Possibly but until recently parole was not legally a consideration. So, it is not surprising that she has been denied at the first opportunity. Good behavior and good deeds are good arguments. In the meantime, given the possibility of freedom, Ms. Clark should revisit what it means to believe in "liberating forces" and be prepared to discuss that very concept with a parole board.
Ms. Clark is not a Rorschach test for how people view punishment for a crime but for how they view punishment for killing police officers. When you kill police officers in the line of duty, you are engaging in not just a crime but an act that undermines civil society. Society has an obligation to police officers to make their protection paramount. Life without parole sends a message, in this case the right message, that killing a police officer will result in the ultimate punishment.
23
At the end of the article, a former detective is quoted as saying he's very pleased with the decision to deny Ms. Clark parole.
I imagine he's pleased because the decision, like the original 75-year sentence, reflects his feelings. When it comes to the victims' families, those feelings must be overwhelming. Nothing could be more natural. Any of us would probably feel the same way. But reflecting our feelings is not what the law is for.
In some things, we can't rely on our feelings to make us desire civilized justice and not uncivilized, seething lynch-law justice. We need penal law free from draconian fury to save us from ourselves. We need standards of appropriateness in sentencing that override grief and rage.
The feelings surrounding Ms. Clark's case make a perfect storm of natural anger and political anger. How long a sentence would have been handed down to the driver in an identical case without the political aspect? How many crisply pitiless comments would there be on this page? Some, but just where would the needle stop on the anger gauge? Answer that question, and we can understand all the better why Justice should not keep her eye on the gauge at all.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
I imagine he's pleased because the decision, like the original 75-year sentence, reflects his feelings. When it comes to the victims' families, those feelings must be overwhelming. Nothing could be more natural. Any of us would probably feel the same way. But reflecting our feelings is not what the law is for.
In some things, we can't rely on our feelings to make us desire civilized justice and not uncivilized, seething lynch-law justice. We need penal law free from draconian fury to save us from ourselves. We need standards of appropriateness in sentencing that override grief and rage.
The feelings surrounding Ms. Clark's case make a perfect storm of natural anger and political anger. How long a sentence would have been handed down to the driver in an identical case without the political aspect? How many crisply pitiless comments would there be on this page? Some, but just where would the needle stop on the anger gauge? Answer that question, and we can understand all the better why Justice should not keep her eye on the gauge at all.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
4
So the Governor, never wanting to miss a press opportunity, decided he could commune with the departed spirit of Jimmy Breslin who he says was urging him to measure up to his Christ-like potential by turning the other cheek on behalf of the murdered man, in his grave these 36 years?
In FUGITIVE PIECES writer Ann Michael tells the parable of the rabbi who is treated badly when he dresses as a peasant on his trip to speak to a wealthy congregation. It is Yom Kippur, and the members of the synagogue, who slighted the man they now know is the esteemed rabbi, to forgive them. More that because it is the Day of Atonement as a pious Jew he MUST forgive them.
Yet the rabbi smiles sadly and explains that forgiveness can only be given by the peasant on the train, and that man is gone forever.....
In FUGITIVE PIECES writer Ann Michael tells the parable of the rabbi who is treated badly when he dresses as a peasant on his trip to speak to a wealthy congregation. It is Yom Kippur, and the members of the synagogue, who slighted the man they now know is the esteemed rabbi, to forgive them. More that because it is the Day of Atonement as a pious Jew he MUST forgive them.
Yet the rabbi smiles sadly and explains that forgiveness can only be given by the peasant on the train, and that man is gone forever.....
5
The perfect parable for this column.
4
75 years for guilt by association?
Basically a life-sentence for driving the getaway car?
I am so very glad I never, ever did anything stupid or foolish or unthinking when I was young and was therefore punished for the term of my natural life.
Basically a life-sentence for driving the getaway car?
I am so very glad I never, ever did anything stupid or foolish or unthinking when I was young and was therefore punished for the term of my natural life.
6
In most systems here, aiding, inducing, or causing an offense is the same as committing that offense. This is not guilt by association, but guilt as a principal in the offense.
7
Oh, I did lots of foolish and unthinking things when I was young, but none of them involved criminal activity such as armed robbery. Driving a getaway car for people with guns who were committing robbery is not something most people would shrug off as a mistake.
3
Young and foolish? She participated in a robbery that led to the deaths of three people. She was 31 at the time. She wasn't all that young either. She knew their plans. She didn't alert anyone or do anything to stop them. She's getting what she deserved. She can stay in prison forever.
3
Mr. Santora, whether parole should be granted and she should be released I leave to others to comment. However she was 31 years old at the time of her crime. I would have referred to her as an adult women, not a young women as you described her in your opening paragraph. Perhaps it's a generational ism, and your still a young man.
9
And she was the mother of a baby, whose fate was tied to her decisions.
2
This was a very violent crime with an underground affiliation. Several people were killed. I remember the gravity of the crime as I was living in the area at the time. People like Ms. Clark and others (like Charles Manson) deserve to rot in prison. They knew what they were doing.
13
Vengeance is not justice; simple precept, difficult to live up to. Better to look to Norway's treatment of it recent mass murderer as a better way.
4
Anders Breivik murdered 77 people, including many youngsters. Technically, he may get out after 21 years in jail, but if still deemed a threat will get 5 year increments. And he has the temerity to currently sue the government for human rights abuse.
1
Prime example of excellent prison rehab but parole board afraid police feelings would be hurt by her parole...doesn't compute.
7
In America, we love to lock up women for life when they defend themselves against abusers and when they are accomplices to crimes. They are held to a higher standard of moral behavior and endure much harsher sentences as such.
10
Jennifer you do not speak for America. Not even a tiny fraction of it.
1
The woman has served 35 years in prison for heaven's sake. Yes, she was found responsible for the murder of three and she behave foolishly at her trial, but there's no use in keeping her in jail any longer, especially given what has been named as "exceptional strides" in self-change and growth. What a cruel society we live in where there are so many people who support her dying in prison, which is what her sentencing really means. That's inhuman and totally unnecessary given she no longer presents any danger to society.
9
Would you say it's more or less "inhuman" than gunning down two cops with families and young kids at home?
1
The principle of retaliation and the mirror principle are ideas of how criminal justice should work that go back to ancient times, retaliation also being a biblical concept. Willingly, albeit sometimes reluctant to admit that, many Americans seem to bask in such ancient concepts of punishment and justice.
I have the impression that a lot of people prefer interminable and capital punishment to quench their very personal thirst for what they call justice to a modern and much more sensible approach to lowering overall crime rates, thus making societies safer and "cities upon hills" whose positive examples want to be copied by other nations, which are no democracies yet.
If all these interminable imprisonments did anything to make the streets and homes safer, then why is it that almost all European countries, where punishments are mostly much milder and the overall incarceration rates are much lower than in the US, are much safer places than the US and have a tremendously lower murder rate than the US?
Vengeance has never been a good guideline to set a criminal justice system right. Open mindedness and real rehabilitation have already stood the test of being a much better approach to address crime. Last but not least, they are a direct consequence of 'inalienable' human rights.
I have the impression that a lot of people prefer interminable and capital punishment to quench their very personal thirst for what they call justice to a modern and much more sensible approach to lowering overall crime rates, thus making societies safer and "cities upon hills" whose positive examples want to be copied by other nations, which are no democracies yet.
If all these interminable imprisonments did anything to make the streets and homes safer, then why is it that almost all European countries, where punishments are mostly much milder and the overall incarceration rates are much lower than in the US, are much safer places than the US and have a tremendously lower murder rate than the US?
Vengeance has never been a good guideline to set a criminal justice system right. Open mindedness and real rehabilitation have already stood the test of being a much better approach to address crime. Last but not least, they are a direct consequence of 'inalienable' human rights.
6
She participated in the murder of three people. She's where she belongs. You are vastly overthinking this.
1
I am sad and sorrowful to see that Judith Clark has been denied parole, despite the unanimous reports that during her 35 years in prison she has transformed herself into a compassionate, life-giving human being. I am especially sad to see that the parole board decided on the basis of petitions from “law-enforcement officers” who have now become as rigid and cruel in their willingness to use violence for the sake of their version of “ justice" as she was in 1981. One more example of how the will to dominate and subjugate can turn into cruelty, and how revenge for the past can overwhelm any response to growth and change.
13
So easy to say when you're not the one who was killed, isn't it!?
2
A crime has been committed and punishment given.
- Statistically it is demonstrated sentence given to women are tougher / longer than to men for same fault / crime level
- 35 years after if a person has changed and became a new human being in mind and spirit, are we to acknowledge it or keep feeding a punitive spirit. Christ spread hope in mankind change thanks to pardon and forgiveness
- Statistically it is demonstrated sentence given to women are tougher / longer than to men for same fault / crime level
- 35 years after if a person has changed and became a new human being in mind and spirit, are we to acknowledge it or keep feeding a punitive spirit. Christ spread hope in mankind change thanks to pardon and forgiveness
4
She did not murder anyone. Her part in the crime was politically motivated and her excessive sentence was politically motivated. She has long ago moved on to become a different, transformed, person. Those who would keep Clark incarcerated have not.
7
Had Judith Clark been represented by a demonstrably incompetent attorney there would be ample reason for a review of her sentence.
She has more than paid the price for her "mistake" - the mistake of representing herself. Drunk with anger and defiance, her self representation at trial led to what is now seen by those not blinded by vengeance, as a miscarriage of justice.
She was incompetently represented. She does not deserve a life sentence for that.
I was impressed that Cuomo had the courage to commute her sentence. The previous governor, Patterson, was too afraid, politically, to do so. He was a coward, sure that he'd be crucified if he granted a pardon or commutation.
I will be surprised if Cuomo, with his eye on continued or higher office, will have the intestinal fortitude to follow his heart and his head - and offer a full pardon now and allow Judith the freedom that would surely have been hers already, were it not for her incompetent legal representation
***
It is tragic that justice for Judith now appears to be mob justice. The fear of what a mob (10,000 or more strong - according to this article) will do to those who don't heed their cries for continued vengeance.
All should recall recall that there is a difference, a vast difference, between justice and vengeance.
Justice "belongs" to all.
Vengeance belongs to one, and only one. ("Vengeance is mine....")
It does not belong to the mob, the self righteous, the angry.
Be merciful, not vengeful.
She has more than paid the price for her "mistake" - the mistake of representing herself. Drunk with anger and defiance, her self representation at trial led to what is now seen by those not blinded by vengeance, as a miscarriage of justice.
She was incompetently represented. She does not deserve a life sentence for that.
I was impressed that Cuomo had the courage to commute her sentence. The previous governor, Patterson, was too afraid, politically, to do so. He was a coward, sure that he'd be crucified if he granted a pardon or commutation.
I will be surprised if Cuomo, with his eye on continued or higher office, will have the intestinal fortitude to follow his heart and his head - and offer a full pardon now and allow Judith the freedom that would surely have been hers already, were it not for her incompetent legal representation
***
It is tragic that justice for Judith now appears to be mob justice. The fear of what a mob (10,000 or more strong - according to this article) will do to those who don't heed their cries for continued vengeance.
All should recall recall that there is a difference, a vast difference, between justice and vengeance.
Justice "belongs" to all.
Vengeance belongs to one, and only one. ("Vengeance is mine....")
It does not belong to the mob, the self righteous, the angry.
Be merciful, not vengeful.
4
Mob justice? Goodness. She has more than paid the price for her mistake of representing herself. But what of the murders? Has justice been served? That is the question.
This is not vengeance. This is about justice and the responsibility of a society to avoid impunity. There is no mob here. There are people with definite views on both sides.
We MUST consider this soberly and with all concerns addressed. I am not really seeing much self-righteousness in these comments. Some are angry. Many are definite.
Be merciful, not vengeful? Where is your skin in this game, exactly? Where is justice in all of this? If justice is there, mercy can be helpful. If not, it will be hurtful. This is what must be determined.
This is not vengeance. This is about justice and the responsibility of a society to avoid impunity. There is no mob here. There are people with definite views on both sides.
We MUST consider this soberly and with all concerns addressed. I am not really seeing much self-righteousness in these comments. Some are angry. Many are definite.
Be merciful, not vengeful? Where is your skin in this game, exactly? Where is justice in all of this? If justice is there, mercy can be helpful. If not, it will be hurtful. This is what must be determined.
2
Are the 3 people whose murders she cheered still dead?
I saw let her loose the instant they come back to life and make pleas in court for her release.
She was given a Life Sentence. That means she is to remain in prison until she no longer lives. The purpose of that sentence was to punish her while sending a message to other potential murders,and had and has nothing to do with rehabilitation. Her sentence was not "to serve time in prison until you are rehabilitated." It was "to remain a prisoner for the rest of your life."
I saw let her loose the instant they come back to life and make pleas in court for her release.
She was given a Life Sentence. That means she is to remain in prison until she no longer lives. The purpose of that sentence was to punish her while sending a message to other potential murders,and had and has nothing to do with rehabilitation. Her sentence was not "to serve time in prison until you are rehabilitated." It was "to remain a prisoner for the rest of your life."
5
She was an adult, and had been one for many years, hen she committed the crime. If she were a man in many US states she would have been executed many years ago. Having her stay in prison is a victory for gender equity. There might be a glass ceiling, but there is definitely a glass floor.
4
She didn't pull the trigger. She is 75. Why are we such animals? There is a point where punishment becomes ridiculous and expensive to taxpayers.
7
I have mixed feelings about the case and her potential release, but I don't think expense figures into it. If she belongs in prison then the expense is what it is. If she is released, she may well continue to be a considerable expense to the taxpayers. It's not like she'll start a career if she gets out.
4
Well, she's connected enough to start quite a book tour and academic career, it seems.
1
When the law is equally applied to all, when white, upper-class killers with expensive lawyers have to serve 35 years for actually killing as opposed to just driving a get away car, then I'll listen to these disgusting, vengeful comments that state "let her rot". Prisoners who reform themselves, serve a good portion of their sentences, and pass into old age should be released. Make them continue some sort of community service if it makes society feel better. But Ms. Clark's space should be freed up for actual violent offenders who should be also denied parole as long as model prisoners like her are denied.
I'm sick and tired of this regressing, medieval, religiously-driven, eye-for-an-eye society that votes for unlimited guns and lets violent criminals walk free while sticking it to a woman like this. And yes, my family has also been touched by violent crime. My sister's best friend came to live with us as a foster after watching her mother murdered in cold blood by her estranged father. He stated that if he couldn't have her, no one could. He pre-meditated and stalked but because he was an ex-cop he was able to cut a deal for 13 years with parole after only 8 years. If he had served 35 years and done the kind of reformation this woman did, we would have been far more accepting of his parole.
Where's the outcry for that kind of injustice that goes on every day?! Oh, but this woman is somehow a greater threat? "Freedom and justice for all", what a lie!
I'm sick and tired of this regressing, medieval, religiously-driven, eye-for-an-eye society that votes for unlimited guns and lets violent criminals walk free while sticking it to a woman like this. And yes, my family has also been touched by violent crime. My sister's best friend came to live with us as a foster after watching her mother murdered in cold blood by her estranged father. He stated that if he couldn't have her, no one could. He pre-meditated and stalked but because he was an ex-cop he was able to cut a deal for 13 years with parole after only 8 years. If he had served 35 years and done the kind of reformation this woman did, we would have been far more accepting of his parole.
Where's the outcry for that kind of injustice that goes on every day?! Oh, but this woman is somehow a greater threat? "Freedom and justice for all", what a lie!
10
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
The dead man's son has no problem with releasing her.
That's the only opinion that counts here.
End of story.
That's the only opinion that counts here.
End of story.
What a waste of money locking some people up is.
5
Re: C.Chase: You mean upper class white people?
Redemption, yes...absolution - No.
3
As an American defense lawyer, I need to remind the "punishment" crowd that one of the purposes of imprisonment is rehabilitation. Ms. Clark was clearly rehabilitated regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed by her associates.
The American justice system is unjust. Until it moves toward compassion, it will never be just.
The American justice system is unjust. Until it moves toward compassion, it will never be just.
31
One would think an "American defense lawyer" would know what the law says regarding an accomplice in a felony where guns are involved and people are murdered. The murders, to which she was an accomplice, were therefore committed by everyone involved, especially in consideration of the fact she knew they carried guns and was fully aware of why.
5
Dear wrong on all counts. Discipline and justice are absolutely required in a murder case like this one. Clearly, the murderous Ms. Clark has been show tremendous mercy in being allowed to live so many years without being executed for the murder she assisted with.
3
One doesn't have to be a criminal defense lawyer to grasp compassion. Felony murder rule has nothing to do with compassion. The felony murder rule has nothing to do with rehabilitation. Ms. Clark was rehabilitated.
People will believe what they want to believe even in the face of undeniable evidence that they are wrong...even parole boards.
As I have said, the American system of justice is unjust. The mythical belief in "free will" must be discarded as a guideline. Compassion had to be felt. Until they are, the American system of justice will remain mired in the old unjust ways.
People will believe what they want to believe even in the face of undeniable evidence that they are wrong...even parole boards.
As I have said, the American system of justice is unjust. The mythical belief in "free will" must be discarded as a guideline. Compassion had to be felt. Until they are, the American system of justice will remain mired in the old unjust ways.
The Comments thus far reflect the divide between the 'lock em up and throw away the key' crowd vs the rehabilitation crowd. I tend to lean to the latter. Thirty-five years is a pretty stiff punishment for most crimes. As a society we are better served over time if we try to rehabilitate people; if we look at whether they have changed, and, perhaps most importantly whether the person is or is not any longer a danger to society. It costs society to keep folks in prison - at some point it would make sense all around to release them.
37
So what you are saying is that she made her choices and as time goes by she should be forgiven? Then can't that argument be made for anyone? Including those that the media vilifies? Please. She should stay in prison. Part of her sentence is to remind others who would consider doing the same thing is that their are serious consequences for illegal activity. She maybe didn't pull the trigger but she sure added to the confidence of those that did by allowing them to rationalize they were going to be able to get away without being caught.
5
As an outsider to the States this is an intriguing read how radicalisation is ingrained in the US, and is not a recent phenomenon. It is not a miscarriage of justice. Judith is guilty of a crime who knowingly took part in actions resulting in death, sterningly self defending what was clearly wrong. The injustice is how the law is manipulated in favour of political agendas.
5
Good. She murdered people. She can stay behind bars until she dies. You cannot truly repent for doing so.
20
Actually, she did not murder anyone. She was an accomplice in a crime in which others murdered people.
37
I have no idea who "you" might be, but she certainly has demonstrated multiple acts that would indicate repentance for her actions, which as have been mentioned, did not include murder. One thing is fairly certain. People who feel strongly that repentance is not possible, are usually projecting their own personal doubts onto others, and further compounding this problem by maintaining the childhood belief that they are typical of everyone else. Do you have any idea what true (and, occasionally, religious) repentance can typically bring? A desire to make amends that historically has compelled individuals to do incredibly beneficial and worthwhile things for society. For the love of dog, she's 67 years old. Perhaps no one should get parole on the first go-round. However, I will be rooting for her during the next attempt. I have known and befriended countless lesser known individuals from this era. Many turned a corner somewhere along their journey and managed to redeem themselves. By all accounts, she has earned the right to try.
Anne-Marie Hislop,she may not have personally murdered anyone,but she voluntarily stood up in court and cheered those murders as a necessary political act.
She wasn't sorry for those deaths then,and she's not sorry for them now. What's she's sorry about is being locked up in prison.
She wasn't sorry for those deaths then,and she's not sorry for them now. What's she's sorry about is being locked up in prison.
10
You kill a cop, you go to prison, you don't get out.
And it should be that way till the end of time.
And it should be that way till the end of time.
30
Cop or no cop, there is no point in keeping anyone in jail for 75 years.
Yes of course because cops are special and should have special treatment.
Many might agree with that formula if it also worked inversely.
5
What part of 75 year minimum sentence is so difficult to understand?
Why have a judicial system if it is not respected?
Why have a judicial system if it is not respected?
61
What does that stupidly circular comment mean? No parole? No chance for rehabilitation? What you express support for is akin to torture and serves no purpose. We lock up millions of people in American jails and they leave prison if they do, as prisoners of our failed system. No jobs, nothing. Comapre this sort of behavior with Scandinavia...
3
Because in the real world, things change.
4
You forget that parole is part of that equation. It was not minimum without parole in this instance. So what in your view is the point of a parole board? A cruel joke? If parole shouldn't happen, then eliminate it. But that is not your point, is it? Its not about your politics. In this case, it sounds like she should have been evaluated for whether she, as an individual, qualified for parole.
1
Glad to see she has grown so much in prison. Perhaps the original sentence could be examined for its fairness.
However, we may never forget, she was not fair to the deceased. An excuse of being young? Heavens, people at age 31 know right from wrong. When you pick up the sword and say that it is ok to do violence, then later say you didn't understand or you were too young--or others are saying this for you--I am sorry, I just don't think that poor judgment of youth or social desire for respect of other violence-mongers justifies sentence commutation and release. Her behavior in court was defiant. I don't care that she was trying to impress others who were violent...she was defiant and as an adult, one is responsible for one's own behavior.
So, the sentence came down as it did. She needs to own the part she played in this. Contrast this with Jahar Tsarnaev who, at his sentence to death, apologized, even though it would do him no good to do so. And he was younger! Much younger, and much more under the sway of his older brother than she was of the violent social group.
Still, I think it is ok to review the fairness of the sentence and make some determination on that. Perhaps it was unfairly long. Perhaps the justice system can show some mercy.
She has not "earned" it, however. Though I am glad she is so rehabilitated.
I would rather be part of a merciful society, than part of a society which goes back on its commitment to justice for the victims.
However, we may never forget, she was not fair to the deceased. An excuse of being young? Heavens, people at age 31 know right from wrong. When you pick up the sword and say that it is ok to do violence, then later say you didn't understand or you were too young--or others are saying this for you--I am sorry, I just don't think that poor judgment of youth or social desire for respect of other violence-mongers justifies sentence commutation and release. Her behavior in court was defiant. I don't care that she was trying to impress others who were violent...she was defiant and as an adult, one is responsible for one's own behavior.
So, the sentence came down as it did. She needs to own the part she played in this. Contrast this with Jahar Tsarnaev who, at his sentence to death, apologized, even though it would do him no good to do so. And he was younger! Much younger, and much more under the sway of his older brother than she was of the violent social group.
Still, I think it is ok to review the fairness of the sentence and make some determination on that. Perhaps it was unfairly long. Perhaps the justice system can show some mercy.
She has not "earned" it, however. Though I am glad she is so rehabilitated.
I would rather be part of a merciful society, than part of a society which goes back on its commitment to justice for the victims.
16
She was not fair to the deceased? Yes, true, but does that mean we should "kill" her too. Clearly you think so in effect and here lies the cruelty and violence of a big slice of America who also" condones gun violence in the name of personal security and freedom.
1
Actually, she did apologize to the victim's families for her part in driving the getaway car. Clarke has done more than just apologize and express remorse. She has spent many years in prison living a life that seeks to heal the harm she's done. She trains service dogs for veterans, law enforcement and the disabled. She created a nursery for the children of the inmates. She created a support group for women living with HIV/AIDS. I could add more, but I fear you wouldn't care because your mind is made up. It's so unfair that people are making her a symbol of a crime she has disowned and repented for instead of looking at what she's done in the Department of Corrections. BTW, why do we call it that if we don't care about corrections? Change the name to the Department of Punishment and Symbolic Incarceration.
5
Jean and Andrew: My mind is not made up. I lean toward mercy. But we cannot overlook perpetration and it must clearly be in our understanding of what is and has been.
We cannot be a merciful and just society without fully regarding perpetration. Being merciful AND just is quite a trick; it must be considered soberly. If we are simply merciful, and allow impunity, we will encourage degradation--ask anyone who has fled a country and sought refugee status or asylum. If we are simply applying society standards of justice and refusing to allow perpetrators to go free or with simply a slap on the hand, then where is the place for mercy? This is what I am weighing, and so are many.
I am responding to the details of the case and excuses being made for her on the basis of age, good behavior, et al.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDER. And she participated in this, and three people's lives were snuffed out. And then she was defiant.
There is no excusing her behavior. THAT is what I am saying.
If you cannot read my comment with all its nuance, then perhaps it is YOU whose mind is made up.
You cannot "disown" a crime. Have you looked up the definition of this term that you used? Here it is: "refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with"
If she has disowned the crime (your words, I did not read that they are her words), she should definitely not receive mercy.
We cannot be a merciful and just society without fully regarding perpetration. Being merciful AND just is quite a trick; it must be considered soberly. If we are simply merciful, and allow impunity, we will encourage degradation--ask anyone who has fled a country and sought refugee status or asylum. If we are simply applying society standards of justice and refusing to allow perpetrators to go free or with simply a slap on the hand, then where is the place for mercy? This is what I am weighing, and so are many.
I am responding to the details of the case and excuses being made for her on the basis of age, good behavior, et al.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDER. And she participated in this, and three people's lives were snuffed out. And then she was defiant.
There is no excusing her behavior. THAT is what I am saying.
If you cannot read my comment with all its nuance, then perhaps it is YOU whose mind is made up.
You cannot "disown" a crime. Have you looked up the definition of this term that you used? Here it is: "refuse to acknowledge or maintain any connection with"
If she has disowned the crime (your words, I did not read that they are her words), she should definitely not receive mercy.
1
The parole board wants to keep a symbol in jail: "You are still a symbol of a terroristic crime." But for this they are condemning a human being, not a symbol, one who has by all accounts undergone a remarkable growth and transformation in her years in prison and become someone of great service and commitment to others. Nothing justifies her crime but if we have the slightest belief in the idea of rehabilitation or redemption, the human being she is now deserves freedom, even though the young and undeveloped woman she once was is a symbol of something that deserves punishment.
78
When Judith Clark rescinds the death penalty she and her buddies inflicted on the driver and the two police officers, then she should get out of jail. Until those three men whose lives were stolen live again, keep her in jail. "At the time of her trial, Ms. Clark was still inflamed by her beliefs, and she represented herself. She expressed no remorse, telling the jury that revolutionary violence was a “liberating force.” Now that she's had some time to stew in jail Ms. Clark is magically rehabilitated. Let her rot in jail as her victims are rotting in their graves. Let her die in jail. Kill police officers and other innocents, and die in jail or be executed.
4
enneth Miller,I am happy she has undergone "growth" while living in the perfect communist system of prison. A system,I might add she happily participated in murdering innocents in order to try to establish as the system in control of the rest of us.
She is a communist living in a perfect communist system where everyone knows their place and everyone is told how to live and what to do every day,so she should be happy to remain there. After all,this was her dream for the rest of us.
Let her rot.
She is a communist living in a perfect communist system where everyone knows their place and everyone is told how to live and what to do every day,so she should be happy to remain there. After all,this was her dream for the rest of us.
Let her rot.
6
If Ms. Clark had assisted in murdering your son or dad you would be demanding her execution...
4
I know of no other comparable society which regularly hands out such excessive penalties. What does this say about Americans? Prison officals and bar association officials believe 35 years in prison is enough. Is it any wonder that one quarter of the world's prisoners are incaracerated in US prisons and prosecutors routinely call for the harshest imaginable sentences?
91
How about the death sentence Judith Clark and her cohorts inflicted on the driver and the two police men? Is she able to rescind THEIR death penalties for which she is responsible? Did their families have a chance to visit them for friendly chats these past 35 years? No, her victims are dead, their families robbed of their company, support and love. Let this killer who only repented AFTER she found herself incarcerated, die in jail.
5
"I know of no other comparable society which regularly hands out such excessive penalties. What does this say about Americans? "
It says we are rational enough to lock dangerous people up so that common citizens can live their lives in peace and safe from criminal attack.
It says we are rational enough to lock dangerous people up so that common citizens can live their lives in peace and safe from criminal attack.
5
What we see here is the on going militarization of society, where men with guns & uniforms are afforded a special status above other citizens. History is larded with this cultural deference for soldiers and cops. It's never amounted to anything but trouble in the long run, and is evidence of totalitarianism waiting in the wings.
In a militarist society a policeman can shoot down a civilian in innumerable ways that defy any logic of necessity or due process under law, and be more or less assured of a relative slap on the wrist. But, if a civilian can be linked to the death of a cop you would have breaking on the wheel, disembowelment & burning at the stake, if it were allowed.
That this woman is being treated within the bounds of law does not mitigate the fact that she is being treated outside the bounds of wisdom.
In a militarist society a policeman can shoot down a civilian in innumerable ways that defy any logic of necessity or due process under law, and be more or less assured of a relative slap on the wrist. But, if a civilian can be linked to the death of a cop you would have breaking on the wheel, disembowelment & burning at the stake, if it were allowed.
That this woman is being treated within the bounds of law does not mitigate the fact that she is being treated outside the bounds of wisdom.
253
I disagree vehemently and am depressed you have double digit recommendations. Who among you and your fans would have the courage to do the most mundane of police tasks, pulling over a motorist and then approaching the vehicle, not know if you're going to be met with a nervous smile or the barrel of a pistol?
I surely wouldn't have the nerve to do that day after day.
What's another frequent cause of police injuries and deaths? Responding to domestic violence calls. Without police, who is going to confront the enraged partner? You?
Those are supposedly the least violent encounters police deal with, leaving out drug dealers, sexual predators, burglars.
You can't change human nature and throughout recorded history, violent humans have preyed on the peaceful. Police are our representatives, going into situations too dangerous for the rest of us. So, yes, they do deserve special protection from our court system.
I surely wouldn't have the nerve to do that day after day.
What's another frequent cause of police injuries and deaths? Responding to domestic violence calls. Without police, who is going to confront the enraged partner? You?
Those are supposedly the least violent encounters police deal with, leaving out drug dealers, sexual predators, burglars.
You can't change human nature and throughout recorded history, violent humans have preyed on the peaceful. Police are our representatives, going into situations too dangerous for the rest of us. So, yes, they do deserve special protection from our court system.
9
and outside the bounds of compassion. Thirty-five years in prison is sufficient punishment. It is obvious from her prison work she has reformed.
Hyperbole defined
1
I know and admire, deeply, Harriet Clark. I don't have an opinion about the sentence, the commutation, the refusal of parole because I have not read the case file. Nonetheless, the fact that Ms. Clark raised such an exceptional daughter while incarcerated leads me to believe that both mother and daughter should be released from this case precisely because whatever lead them each to this path they have arrived together in love and grace. Even without prison, that is a miracle.
19
Harriet Clark hasn't raised anyone. In case it has escaped your attention,she has been locked away in prison and her daughter was raised by others.
8
" Even without prison, that is a miracle."
That's great. But the miracle can go right on being a miracle with her in prison. We don't let people out of jail because we deeply admire their children.
That's great. But the miracle can go right on being a miracle with her in prison. We don't let people out of jail because we deeply admire their children.
5
Was that exceptional daughter raised behind bars?
Gov. Cuomo is to be applauded. A rare bold risk taking move to try do the right thing, from a notoriously calculating machine politician.
As for Clark, that's a very tough question. She was determined to prove she was a good little revolutionary, so she self sabotaged at trial. Meanwhile her co conspirators played ball with the justice system, and many are free by now. Essentially, this minor player in the brinks robbery becomes surrogate justice for better behaved defendants. For me the question becomes, to what extent is it the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of defendants who ignore their own rights, and throw themselves on their swords?
As for Clark, that's a very tough question. She was determined to prove she was a good little revolutionary, so she self sabotaged at trial. Meanwhile her co conspirators played ball with the justice system, and many are free by now. Essentially, this minor player in the brinks robbery becomes surrogate justice for better behaved defendants. For me the question becomes, to what extent is it the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of defendants who ignore their own rights, and throw themselves on their swords?
27
"For me the question becomes, to what extent is it the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of defendants who ignore their own rights, and throw themselves on their swords?" The "Government" has no responsibility to militants who murder innocents, except to incarcerate them for 1. punishment and 2. so they can't kill again. This good little revolutionary only became "repentant" when she had time to stew in jail, to find out that there was a penalty for murder. Keep her in lock up until she dies.
2
Felony murder. If she were a right wing radical she would rot in jail with no attention paid by the media. Sorry Ms. Clark - you reap what you sow.
30
Felony murder. If she were a right wing radical she would rot in jail with no attention paid by the media. Sorry Ms. Clark - you reap what you sow.
Repeated because it needs to be said over and over until it sinks into the thick skulls of the leftists that think THEIR murders are justified.
Repeated because it needs to be said over and over until it sinks into the thick skulls of the leftists that think THEIR murders are justified.
4
Forgiveness does not mandate release from just incarceration. Some actions are, or at least should be, unpardonable. Clark participated in many thefts with her terrorist comrades, including one immediately prior to the Brinks robbery in which another armored car guard was murdered. The arresting officer, the local police chief, maintained Clark was reaching for the weapon found under her seat when apprehended. The robberies were to fund murdering police officers and bombing government institutions (as well as supporting some members' drug habits.) The assertion that some participants served less time is true but in part because some died and two others were inexplicably pardoned by President Clinton on his final day in office. At least two gang members, David Gilbert and Mutulu Shakur, remain incarcerated. Clark was 31 at the time of the Brinks robbery, not a naive teenager. The concept of felony murder is well reasoned and correctly applied in this case. I encourage people to check with their library system for the book written about the Brinks robbery and events leading up to it, The Big Dance.
64
If released, Ms.Clark can contribute to the turnaround concept of Forgiveness as a liberating force against the evils of Vengeance pervading Society today, the same doctrine she professed earlier when she was condemned
7
“It was a hard political decision,” Mr. Cuomo said. “I could hear Jimmy’s voice saying, ‘She made a mistake — we all do. She learned, she paid the price, she spent her life in a cage, and she is now different. Jesus would pardon her. Who the hell made you better than Jesus?’”
Who made jimmy Breslin the interpreter of what Jesus would do?
Who made jimmy Breslin the interpreter of what Jesus would do?
"Her supporters argued that even though she never pulled a trigger, her sentence was much harsher than those of many of the others involved."
No fair!
No fair!
7
The board was manifestly correct.
19
Gov. Cuomo is a politician. The best reporters have referred to him as a common hack. He uses task forces and committees to solve the worst of it - in NY York State.
Now he grandstands to gather support from the Sanders element as he schemes ahead for the election in 4 years.
Why did he not simply issue a pardon? What the commuted sentence? Is there a law with which I am unfamiliar?
Politicans take tons of money from Goldman, Sachs... who believes that firm is honest? Who believes those that take from them are honest? Who trusts President Trump? Who says he is not a pathological liar?
No thanks to Andrew Cuomo, Sheldon Silver is in jail. Why not dozens more?
Sounds like Judith Clark would be an ideal teacher for the police and others that brutalize our minorities. She has seen it all. Put her on campus. Let her speak.
The anger that the crazy left felt back then came from the same place that ISIS anger is coming from. Societal abuse of the young produces this hatred. And it is getting worse by the day, world wide. Income disparity is buy one cause. Racial hatred is another.
Yet, when one of the worst manages to clean herself up and contribute, we wish to punish her for life. She killed no one. She was an immature youngster. She is an adult today, and she is accountable. She is not in denial.
Such anger is itself imprisonment for the angry.
Keeping Clark jailed will not bring happiness to that element.
The governor should finish the job. Free her.
Now he grandstands to gather support from the Sanders element as he schemes ahead for the election in 4 years.
Why did he not simply issue a pardon? What the commuted sentence? Is there a law with which I am unfamiliar?
Politicans take tons of money from Goldman, Sachs... who believes that firm is honest? Who believes those that take from them are honest? Who trusts President Trump? Who says he is not a pathological liar?
No thanks to Andrew Cuomo, Sheldon Silver is in jail. Why not dozens more?
Sounds like Judith Clark would be an ideal teacher for the police and others that brutalize our minorities. She has seen it all. Put her on campus. Let her speak.
The anger that the crazy left felt back then came from the same place that ISIS anger is coming from. Societal abuse of the young produces this hatred. And it is getting worse by the day, world wide. Income disparity is buy one cause. Racial hatred is another.
Yet, when one of the worst manages to clean herself up and contribute, we wish to punish her for life. She killed no one. She was an immature youngster. She is an adult today, and she is accountable. She is not in denial.
Such anger is itself imprisonment for the angry.
Keeping Clark jailed will not bring happiness to that element.
The governor should finish the job. Free her.
29
"She was an immature youngster." She was 31 years old! How long in your mind does a person remain a child? 40 years old? 35 years old? Clark was an ADULT. She knew what she was doing and had participated in other robberies. Let her die in prison, her victims are all three dead these past 35 years, their families and loved ones denied their companionship for 3 1/2 decades. Don't let this killer walk the streets free.
5
The "Governor" should be more concerned about the frighteningly high crime rate in New York City and New York State now. If the "Governor's" dad had been murdered by Ms. Clark's team of murderers then he would have not supported her release.
2
The governor has had a difficult time managing his own family and the state he was elected to oversee. He should keep his nose out of this matter.
1
The crime didn't leave the guard and the cops dead. JUDITH CLARK DID.
22
It always makes me so depressed to see how many people have more sympathy for this murderer* then they do for her victims and their families and loved ones.
Our justice system does an overwhelming amount of things wrong. We incarcerate far too many people for far too long. Judith Clark is not an example of these injustices. Keeping this woman in prison until she dies would be one of the times they're getting it absolutely right. (Yes, her co-conspirators are out. Those are examples of the justice system getting it wrong) It is very sad that her daughter has grown up with her mother in prison, but it's Judith Clark who is responsible for that.
The purpose of rehabilitation is that the rehabilitation is it's own reward. It's to let her find as much purpose and redemption as she can while paying her debt to society and her victims. It's good that she's been able to do this. It does not mean that she should now be released. Her crimes had the most permanent consequence there is for her victims. Justice requires that the consequences for her are similarly permanent.
*Yes, I understand she was a getaway driver and did not herself pull the trigger. I can respect the view that holds this woman is thus not a murderer, but I don't share it. At best, she is accomplice to murder. I just don't see a meaningful moral difference between committing the murder yourself, or knowingly helping someone else do it. By her own admission, she knew what she was doing.
Our justice system does an overwhelming amount of things wrong. We incarcerate far too many people for far too long. Judith Clark is not an example of these injustices. Keeping this woman in prison until she dies would be one of the times they're getting it absolutely right. (Yes, her co-conspirators are out. Those are examples of the justice system getting it wrong) It is very sad that her daughter has grown up with her mother in prison, but it's Judith Clark who is responsible for that.
The purpose of rehabilitation is that the rehabilitation is it's own reward. It's to let her find as much purpose and redemption as she can while paying her debt to society and her victims. It's good that she's been able to do this. It does not mean that she should now be released. Her crimes had the most permanent consequence there is for her victims. Justice requires that the consequences for her are similarly permanent.
*Yes, I understand she was a getaway driver and did not herself pull the trigger. I can respect the view that holds this woman is thus not a murderer, but I don't share it. At best, she is accomplice to murder. I just don't see a meaningful moral difference between committing the murder yourself, or knowingly helping someone else do it. By her own admission, she knew what she was doing.
26
Absolutely ridiculous. What is gained by keeping her in jail?
She made a mistake. But who amongst us cannot understand a young persons need to lash out against a government who had been killing many innocent people in acts of war.
She was radicalized by Vietnam Nam, as were many. Nothing is served by keeping her locked up. There is no threat here.
She made a mistake. But who amongst us cannot understand a young persons need to lash out against a government who had been killing many innocent people in acts of war.
She was radicalized by Vietnam Nam, as were many. Nothing is served by keeping her locked up. There is no threat here.
37
A "mistake"? Forgetting your dentist appointment is a mistake. Participating in an armed robbery is not a "mistake."
"Radicalized by Vietnam"? Which ended a decade before this robbery.
Were many "radicalized by Vietnam"? Of course. But how many of them robbed armored cars and killed police?
"Radicalized by Vietnam"? Which ended a decade before this robbery.
Were many "radicalized by Vietnam"? Of course. But how many of them robbed armored cars and killed police?
21
Justice demands that she be executed. She has been shown incredible mercy by being allowed to remain alive and imprisoned.
4
I do not think being an accomplice to murder is a "mistake." And I do not agree that the U.S. being in a war justifies a 31 year old "young person" participating in a vicious crime that took the lives of three men.
I'm disappointed that the New York Times would even publish your comments. They are an insult to all of us who expect the law to be enforced and criminals to face the consequences of their crime.
I'm disappointed that the New York Times would even publish your comments. They are an insult to all of us who expect the law to be enforced and criminals to face the consequences of their crime.
1
Cuomo passed the buck. She could have done more good outside. As the article says he could have freed her, and chose not to.Safe bet if you are seeking another office.
This woman poses no risk to society. In fact, conditions for her release can be set so she continues her good deeds as part of the community. America needs to learn forgiveness, her people and institutions, are way too harsh and often use the wrong justification (religion) for this behaviour.
64
The murders she assisted in carrying out cry out for justice. She should have been executed for the crimes. If your son or dad had been murdered by Ms. Clark you would be crying out for her execution.
2
This is an example of the human desire for retribution. Also many people feel the punishment has to continue until death.
Warden Clinton Duffy of San Quentin Prison was a proponent of rehabilitation, he began a program to keep the ex convict from coming back. Police and others think continued incarceration is a deterrent to others. I am not sure a criminal thinks about this at the time. maybe later, I am sure there are some studies about this.
Warden Clinton Duffy of San Quentin Prison was a proponent of rehabilitation, he began a program to keep the ex convict from coming back. Police and others think continued incarceration is a deterrent to others. I am not sure a criminal thinks about this at the time. maybe later, I am sure there are some studies about this.
16
Like so many things today penitentiary incarceration has lost its original purpose and has fallen into practice that is contrary. The very word tells us the story. It is intended as a place for contemplating one's sin and as a penitent restore your soul to righteousness after which time spent in penitentiary the community restores the repented person to a life of freedom and self-respect. These were the noble and merciful aims of the first penitentiary advocates. Utmost in their mind was redemption of wayward souls and returning them to the congregation of all believers as Jesus taught--"forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Sadly, the spirit of redemption has been lost and the bitterness of vengeance has taken its place. If the possibility of retribution were enough to separate criminals from their crimes than the legacy of Biblical Cain would have ended murder and the forgiveness of Joseph toward his jealous brothers once he survived the pit and rose to wealth and power in Egypt would be the example for us all. Length of sentence is empty satisfaction for innocent observers. The true reward comes by enabling a perpetrator to face the damage of their crimes, find true repentance, and succeed in rebuilding their body and mind to a level where they are trustworthy and ready to make the best of whatever life is left to them.
Sadly, the spirit of redemption has been lost and the bitterness of vengeance has taken its place. If the possibility of retribution were enough to separate criminals from their crimes than the legacy of Biblical Cain would have ended murder and the forgiveness of Joseph toward his jealous brothers once he survived the pit and rose to wealth and power in Egypt would be the example for us all. Length of sentence is empty satisfaction for innocent observers. The true reward comes by enabling a perpetrator to face the damage of their crimes, find true repentance, and succeed in rebuilding their body and mind to a level where they are trustworthy and ready to make the best of whatever life is left to them.
23
No one cares if she is rehabilitated. She's should stay in jail the ful 75.
2
Kathy Boudin, who drove the other vehicle, the U-Haul, was released a few years ago. what is the rationale for keeping her imprisoned?
This is a true miscarriage of justice.
This is a true miscarriage of justice.
163
No, releasing Boudin was a miscarriage of justice.
7
Kathy Boudin was involved in TWO multiple murders...1970 townhouse explosion leaving three dead. She avoided prosecution because of legal technicalities. Ten years later, she left her new baby to commit the armed robbery resulting in the deaths of three men. Her release only shows how much pull the radical community has. And now she teaches at Columbia. Talk about a miscarriage of justice.
5
Kathy Boudin should still be locked up as well.
3
How about a story on the victims and their survivors and their pain?
58
Rehabilitation, is hereabouts defined as resurrection of the decedents.
Until then, a primitive and barbaric allows such people to live and walk and breath air, a humane and compassionate society would extirpate this cancer, as comfort to the survivors, but scant comfort that
The purpose of punishment, is generalized deterrence. She is a danger to society by showing our lack of resolve.
Until then, a primitive and barbaric allows such people to live and walk and breath air, a humane and compassionate society would extirpate this cancer, as comfort to the survivors, but scant comfort that
The purpose of punishment, is generalized deterrence. She is a danger to society by showing our lack of resolve.
3
'She said that as a new mother, ..."
There you go.
There you go.
1
She should be appealing to the families of the deceased. That would carry a lot of weight.
10
What is the point of rehabilitation if not to prepare offenders to return to society?
153
People convicted of felony murder always consider it an injustice. They just don't get that the law is to discourage people from engaging in illegal activities that can result in death. Clearly Ms Clark, at the time of the trial, was not in the least concerned that her actions contributed to the deaths of three innocent people.
It would be an odd person indeed who wasn't different at age 67 than they were at 31. Hardly seems a reason to second guess the sentencing judge
It would be an odd person indeed who wasn't different at age 67 than they were at 31. Hardly seems a reason to second guess the sentencing judge
29
Good people lost fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, friends, coworkers, etc. She did not kill anyone? She could of prevented this slaughter at anytime by alerting authorities and showed no remorse. Let her rot in prison, let her die in prison
41
Jesus will judge us all.
1
Jim Brunswick, GA - A myth can't judge anything.
5
And if we endorse the murdering of police by letting convicted killers out of prison then we deserve to burn in Hell.
2
Many observers have praised the parole board for its finding. I don't think they deserve to be praised. Understandably, the cops are for maximum imprisonment. They almost automatically lean this way.
However, Mrs. Clark has served 35 years and rehabilitated herself. Half of her life has been spent behind bars, away from her daughter who has grown up without her. T
It's hard for them to release Mrs. Clark with all the cops looking over their shoulders at the board, ready to let out a clamor if Mrs. Clark is released. So the parole board took the easy course and yielded to the heavy influence and intimidation of the cops.
I can't blame the cops for feeling as they do; however, justice was not served by the finding of this parole board.
The humane thing to do here is grant immediate parole and return Mrs. Clark to active society. She didn't kill anyone, and 35 years imprisonment is like a lifetime. -Zev out
However, Mrs. Clark has served 35 years and rehabilitated herself. Half of her life has been spent behind bars, away from her daughter who has grown up without her. T
It's hard for them to release Mrs. Clark with all the cops looking over their shoulders at the board, ready to let out a clamor if Mrs. Clark is released. So the parole board took the easy course and yielded to the heavy influence and intimidation of the cops.
I can't blame the cops for feeling as they do; however, justice was not served by the finding of this parole board.
The humane thing to do here is grant immediate parole and return Mrs. Clark to active society. She didn't kill anyone, and 35 years imprisonment is like a lifetime. -Zev out
138
She should have been humane 35 years ago.
2
Either it is OK to kill a policeman or it's not. You believe it is OK.
1
No, actually, a lifetime is like a lifetime. 35 years is only 35 years. My past 35 years zoomed by quickly. And I had to pay for my room and board, unlike this woman. What I think would be humane is if she can bring back the dead. If she can't do that ... well ... no parole.
1
There is not such thing as redemption or atonement in the American criminal "justice" system.
She was young, naive, and has expressed remorse.
I do not doubt that at this juncture, her incarceration is a disservice to society as a whole.
She was young, naive, and has expressed remorse.
I do not doubt that at this juncture, her incarceration is a disservice to society as a whole.
117
I agree that it's reasonable to parole her, but I don't think she can claim the "young and naive" thing as an excuse. She was 31 - still young, but old enough to know better.
13
I cannot agree, Annamarie.
Gee, I was involved in the killing of three people. I feel badly about it. I was young and naive when I did it.
Continuing to keep me in prison is a disservice to society as a whole.
Hogwash.
If society wants to be merciful, that is ok. Forcing a society to be so, IS NOT OK. It is up to society, not a perpetrator.
Gee, I was involved in the killing of three people. I feel badly about it. I was young and naive when I did it.
Continuing to keep me in prison is a disservice to society as a whole.
Hogwash.
If society wants to be merciful, that is ok. Forcing a society to be so, IS NOT OK. It is up to society, not a perpetrator.
5
Then why are those who committed the murders free now?
5
Guys in blue, it is no disrespect to offer a little forgiveness to someone who is remorseful, served 35 years and has transformed themselves. Aren't our prisons ideally supposed to do just that?
170
Mercy, maybe, but we should not ever force someone who has lost family and friends to murder, to forgive. That is their decision, if ever.
7
Yes, whether or not to forgive is their decision. That does not mean that society must indulge them if their choice is for revenge that goes beyond what is reasonable.
This is heartbreaking. Judy Clark is a model of rehabilitation and somebody who has a truly extraordinary record of good works in prison. Prison should not be about revenge, and it is certainly not about symbolism. This is a real woman who is entirely changed and has helped countless other women behind bars. She has paid her debt to society for thirty-six long years. She deserves to be free.
215
When she bring back the dead people she helped kill then she can go free.
7
Heartbreaking....Check with the families of the victims.
14
Prison is indeed about symbolism: we will not allow murder to go unpunished. It stands against impunity in this case, and in all cases of violence to others.
Has she paid her debt to society? Not according to the sentence she received. Not yet.
We can, however, decide to be merciful. That is our choice, not hers.
Has she paid her debt to society? Not according to the sentence she received. Not yet.
We can, however, decide to be merciful. That is our choice, not hers.
she rehabilitated herself. she learned.
what kind of society are we?
what kind of society are we?
74
one that can't bring back the dead
The kind with prisons-for-profit run by the private sector and the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world...
27
A depraved society.
15
Meanwhile G W Bush and Darth Vader Cheney are free as birds to make lots of money, voice bad opinions, get pensions, paint bad pictures and get endless heart transplants after KNOWINGLY starting an aggressive war which sent thousands to their death in Iraq and spending Trillions of taxpayer dollars to destabalize the middle east.
Yea, justice in America is a thing to behold alright!
Yea, justice in America is a thing to behold alright!
234
Cheney should be in prison. Bush I could be a little more merciful to. Cheney? Lock him up and he should die in prison for his deeds in office...and probably out of office, too.
12
Your appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy.
These are separate incidents and should be viewed as such.
These are separate incidents and should be viewed as such.
3
Alright is not a word. And war is not robbing a money truck and killing its drivers in order to fund yourself. Apples and oranges, open your eyes.
1
Really? Why is this woman a current danger to society?
73
Serve the full sentence.
20
I'm very sorry to see the parole board continue to keep it's head firmly in the past. Most European countries understand that the role of prison is to both to keep society safe by removing bad actors until they are rehabilitated. This is because it is believed that every human being has a value to society that can be realized. In the U.S. we have forgotten about the rehabilitation of people who are incarcerated just as we have forgotten to value the lives of so many others in our society. Should we recognize the rights of victims? Yes, absolutely. We should recognize their right to receive all the help possible to recover from the crime that was committed against them. Should we recognize their right to exact revenge? No. And the right to revenge is what the parole board has chosen to value in this case. It's a shame.
95
The USA is Not Europe. If you removed just two groups from the prison population the USA would be equal to or better than many European countries that are always trotted out.
1
I may be dense, but what "two groups" are you talking about?
1
After 35 years it's time for taxpayers to stop paying for her keep.
She's served enough time for her crime. She's 67; unlikely she a public threat.
She's served enough time for her crime. She's 67; unlikely she a public threat.
201
She should have been executed a day after her sentence of death for her assisting in murder. Yes, we have had to pay for her "keep" for way too long.
2
Do mean to say that killing is not always wrong?
1
No winners here and a tough call for the board.
Take another look in a couple years when she is eligible again allowing for the effect of the governor's intervention to lessen.
Take another look in a couple years when she is eligible again allowing for the effect of the governor's intervention to lessen.
5
This is disappointing. The other individuals involved, who had more blood on their hands than Ms. Clark, are long out of prison.
Her punishment is more from having the wrong lawyer than from her relative personal culpability.
Her punishment is more from having the wrong lawyer than from her relative personal culpability.
251
And being the "wrong" sex.
3
While some of the other perps should not be out, you do have a point there.
Still, she's not a political prisoner -- she's a murderer.
Still, she's not a political prisoner -- she's a murderer.
1
"The other individuals involved, who had more blood on their hands than Ms. Clark, are long out of prison."
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Gunfire erupted." You make it sound like the victims were responsible for their own deaths. She was an accomplice to murder, and freeing her would make a statement that Blue Lives Don't Matter.
Just to give perspective
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/11/us_backed_saudi_forces_bomb_yemeni
And oh, it wasn't Trump who was president then.