Convict teaching criminal justice

Well, what are the relevant points here? Can a New Jersey court prohibit this man from applying for public jobs in Pennsylvania? I would suggest that the New Jersey courts' writs run only as far as the NJ state line. Are we suggesting that this man should never be allowed to work again ... ever ... that he should just be left to shuffle through the rest of his life homeless and unemployable? Would that satisfy your sense of justice?

 

Re: Re: Convict teaching criminal justice

This is a good one for the lawyers. Does this guy face prosecution, when he returns to New Jersey, or is he barred only from public jobs in New Jersey?

Well, there are still a few jobs left in the private sector. There is nothing stopping him from working for a large auditing firm, Las Vegas casino, or contractor in Iraq.

 

Part 1 of 2

Assuming he's no longer on probation, probably not. If he were, then definitely. In fact, New Jersey authorities would not need to wait for him to cross back into that jurisdiction. He could be arrested on a New Jersey warrant by Pennsylvania authorities, and would be extraditable.

Given that it was a New Jersey state court ruling, he's probably only barred there... that is, assuming no other state decides to honor New Jersey's order, which any other state is perfectly within its right to do; and as some might argue (though probabaly incorrectly) said other state would be pretty much required to do pursuant to the Consitution's "full faith and credit clause."

It's not dissimilar to a driver's license ban... or virtually any other type of licensure ban, for that matter: One state lifts a guy's license, and he simply goes to a neighboring state and gets another one. Of course, most states will honor another state's ban; but history and the news are rife with stories drivers and doctors and accountants and manifold others who have been drummed out of the ranks of their own state's licensed, but then turned around and were able to get some other state to license them there. In any case, when this happens, the licensee is never in violation of the original state's order unless he tries to get relicensed in said original state.

Even if the order contained language like, "in this or any other state," it could be fairly convincingly argued that such language probably oversteps the authority of the issuing judge. It gets into the whole 10th-Amendment/States'-rights thing. Fortunately, when such an overreaching part of an order is at issue, it usually doesn't render void or even voidable that part of said order which does not overstep said issuing judge's authority; so an unenforceable error in one part of the judge's order will not make the rest of it also unenforceable... that is, unless the rest of said order is predicated on said error.

Well, of course, this is always the question when someone breaks the law and serves his/her time and, therefore, his/her debt to society is considered to have been paid. In certain cases, society and the law allows for certain aspects of said debt to never really be fully paid. For example, a convicted felon is disenfranchised (barred from voting), and limited as to his ability to do certain things in life (owning a gun, for example; or crossing the border into Canada, just to name two things) often for the rest of his life.

And I won't even get in to what society seems to think should become of child molesters once they're released from prison. Society's knee seems never to be lifted off the child molester's chest... which may well be as it should be, I dunno. But I'd like for this thread not to digress into that particular subject. I mention it only as an example of how the debt, in some cases, is not (or, perhaps, cannot) ever really (be) paid.

And, rightly or wrongly, that is, perhaps, the way society wants it. If so, then, yes, perhaps society is saying, as you worded it, "...that this man should never be allowed to work again ... ever ... that he should just be left to shuffle through the rest of his life homeless and unemployable." Of course, like for that to virtually never be what society is actually saying to those who've broken its laws, but have then paid for said breaking by serving whatever is the trial court's sentence. But what I'd like, and how things actually are, are often two decidedly different things.

It is my considered opinion that, assuming he's no longer on probation, former sheriff Ciccone is breaking no laws, rules or court orders by going outside the jurisdiction which ordered him to never, for the rest of his life, hold public employment therein; and that his having obtained public employment in another jurisdiction which -- at its own option, and completely within its rights to so do -- chooses to ignore his past transgressions and criminal record and hire him into a public employment position, breaks any laws, rules or orders, either. Nor should sheriff Ciccone be arrested upon his return to New Jersey because his having obtained said public employment in another state does not, technically, violate the New Jersey Court's order because said order only covers said state... even if it incorrectly says that it covers all states. I believe that only a federal court order, so worded, could possibly impose such a limitation.

Pennsylvania -- or at least the particular university at which Ciccone is teaching within it -- obviously doesn't put a lot of emphasis on faculty criminal records. After all, it doesn't, according to the article, even run criminal background checks on faculty (though, apparently, it does ask about it during the application process). It may be no accident, therefore, that Ciccone is working there... or that it's a mere one-year engagement. Perhaps the university is trying him out to see how it will work... sort of a probationary thing.

And why not, after all? The guy's crimes are bad, but they're not the end of the world. If he's paid his debt and has abided by the Court's order (which, technically, he is), then why shouldn't he be given another chance? After all, we don't know if...

Continued in next post...

 

Part 2 of 2

...continued from previous post.

...this guy has been changed by all this. I mean, maybe he's had an epiphany or something. What if he begins each class with a little homily that goes something like this:

• Hello, and welcome to "Principles of Criminal Justice." My name is Joseph Ciccone, and I will be your instructor for this course. Before we begin, I'd like you all to please put down you pencils and just listen to me for a few moments. I have something important that I want to say to you all... and I beg your indulgence in really paying attention to what I'm about to say, and giving some serious consideration to what, if anything, you'd like to do about it once I have.
  
  I am a career law enforcement professional... or at least I used to be. I rose to one of the highest offices in the field that you've come here to study... that of the elected sheriff of Bergen County, New Jersey, where I swore a sacred oath to uphold the law and to bring criminals to justice... which I did. But -- and this is important -- I will tell you all, right now, that I also violated that oath, and became a criminal myself. Perhaps it was a playing-out in real life of Lord Acton's famous admonition, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"; or maybe it was just as simple as me being stupid, and unspeakably arrogant which earned me the opinion of me by New Jersey officials, as quoted in the New York Times, that I was ''a corrupt public official who sullied the reputation of law enforcement.'' They were right. I was. I did.
  
  And I paid for it.. and am paying, still. I paid for it by being charged with and convicted of felonies; and by serving the sentence for same that the court ordered. I paid for it by losing my elected office, and by being barred from serving in an office like it ever again... ever. I'm paying for it, still, by my disenfranchisement, and my inability to own a gun or to travel into most other countries. I'm paying for it by having to disclose on certain documents, for the rest of my life, that I am a convicted felon... which, based on my age now; and barring dread disease, accident or suicide, is likely to be in the neighborhood of at least 30 more years. I'm paying for it by the shame and humiliation I brought onto myself, and my loving family who did nothing to deserve the unfairness of the cloud that my actions put over their heads as well as my own. I'm paying for it, still, by the newspaper articles, and television and radio news stories, that are running this very moment; and which question -- and perhaps rightly so -- whether I should even be here, standing before you right now, teaching this criminlology course. And, most importantly, I'm paying for it, still, as I contemplate what you're all thinking right now... as you question whether you even want to remain in your seats another minute. But I ask that you stay in them at least long enough to hear this:
  
  The past almost-six years have been life-altering for me. I do not completely understand why I needed to touch the hot stove myself in order to know that I would be burned if I did. Like a child who believes himself to be immortal and, therefore, is not as careful about dangerous situations as he probably should be, I must have thought that I was somehow immune from society's rules. I do not know why it wasn't enough for me to know, intellectually, that I should not have done what I did; or why I had to actually do it in order to learn to the depths of my soul what a gross and nearly-unforgivable violation of the implied social contract it was. But I've learned it now. I am a change man... deeply remorseful, and humbled by what's happend to me, which I brought upon myself.
  
  In this course, you will learn things that I should have let guide me as both a person and a public official. If you are uncomfortable with the notion of being taught these many important lessons by someone who has truly learned them the hard way, then I invite you to withdraw from this course now.
  
  For those of you who remain, I will not let you down, as I once let down the many thousands of people who elected me, but whose trust I did not take seriously and ultimately violated. I know know the error of my ways. I will not require your admiration, for I do not deserve that. But I will require your respect for me in this position. If you cannot give it, then please withdraw so that your disdain for me will not interfere with others' attempts to learn in this room.
  
  Thank you for your kind attention and consideration. Class is now over for today, so that those of you who wish to withdraw may have some time to go to the registrar's office and do so. Those of you who choose to stay, I will see at this time, day after tomorrow. Come prepared to learn. You will not be disappointed.

What if he begins with a heartfelt speech like that? If so, would his having been hired in spite of his past be more understandable? And would not it be likely that his course would be something akin to excellent?

The world is a complex -- ne, complicated -- place. Its rights and wrongs do not often fit into neat little boxes. There is much that is gray; and our capacity for forgiveness can be great.

For all we know, Joseph Ciccone may still be very much, today, the same sociopathic, lawbreaking jerk he was when he held office and sold jobs, and shook down vendors for campaign contributions. He may have learned nothing from his plight and may, therefore, not only not deserve to be teaching at East Stroudsburg University; but he may well not deserve to be walking the streets among the law-abiding.

But what if he's changed? What if he really is able to deliver the aforementioned homily, and mean it from the very depths of his soul? What if he's, therefore, the best damned criminology instructor/professor that one could possibly imagine because for him, it's got real meaning and provides personal guidance?

Anyone can teach how the system works and why it's important and good that we have it. But if Ciccone has been changed for the better by that which has happened to him -- and which, of course, he brought upon himself -- then perhaps he can breath life into the moral imperative aspect of the study of criminology as perhaps no one else could.

Who wouldn't pay to have an instructor like that?

 

I "know" Joe Ciccone, having gone through an online faculty certification course with him. While I have very little patience for corrupt cops, I do believe that he's sincerely changed his ways for the better, and he does have a wealth of knowledge to share with his students.

 

Perhaps you should send him Gregg's speech? It would be a great hit, IMHO.

 

Not a bad idea, I might just do that.

 

Gregg's speech makes Ciccone seem singularly corrupt rather than a Captain of corruption in an army of crooks.

Wrong message, IMO.

 

And that's a perfectly valid opinion. He is, or at least was, just one player -- ne, the evil leader -- in an entire clan of corruption. There's no arguing that.

But Ciccone can't change or control the whole world... merely his corner of it. He can only take responsibility for his own actions; and if he were able to make that speech -- and really mean it -- then I'd say that he had.

Having done so, it would then be a breeze for him to cover the wrongdoings of the the others in the corrupt construct of which he was a part in the very lessons he would teach during the class itself.

I mean... first things first, after all... right?

 

With overarching authority I declare your opinion to be perfectly valid.

I doubt that Ciccone had the power to change his domain as I am sure he apprenticed in that domain of corruption.

Covering for the wrongdoing of others? That's just what you do.

If Ciccone wants to do some real good then he should repose himself and family to some anonymous yurt in Mongolia, leaving behind a full account of the who and the what of New Jersey corruption.

 

Is that aimed at me, personally, or are you using the collective "you"... like in "that's just what one does"? If it's the former, precisely when have I covered for the wrongdoing of others?

Hoo-boy.

People like you are exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the part about prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Do you know anything about New Jersey? Do you think it's an accident that the creator of the HBO series "The Sopranos" chose New Jersey as the setting? I mean... you're kiddin', right? Ciccone was the smallest of small players in the master scheme of corruption in, of all places, New Jersey. What you propose would be like assuming that just because a guy stole a car he, therefore, also knows all other guys who steal cars... or who rob banks, or sell drugs, or commit whatever other crimes one can think of...

...and then asking him to name them.

Sheesh! Gimmee a break.

 

Generic.

Anonymously in Mongolia not as punishment but as sanctuary.

It exists at the pleasure of New York.

Thank you for repeating me.

 

Gosh, I've always thought of Mongolia as exile rather than sanctuary!

 

Re: Re: Re: Convict teaching criminal justice

Well, Arthur Andersen is no longer in business. And I suspect that if there were any other Andersen-style creative accounting firms left, they won't be around very many seasons more either.

 

You might think otherwise if you had to find a place where you wouldn't be found.

 

Okay... now, that's funny!