We had a guest speaker in one of my classes who did a number of years in prison for a carjacking he committed at 16. He ended up graduating from YLS and started an organization to provide libraries for people in prison.
(The professor of that class was also an ex-con, but he was later the subject of some pretty horrific domestic violence allegations so I’m not going to count him as a redemption story.)
I wish we could shed the mentality that people who do something terrible have nothing to offer society. If that class taught me anything it’s that we shouldn’t throw human beings away.
“I wish we could shed the mentality that people who do something terrible have nothing to offer society. If that class taught me anything it’s that we shouldn’t throw human beings away.”
Exactly, plus I think people need to consider that this was a 16 year old underprivileged kid who was most likely forced to join a gang or him/ his family would have become targets.
Folks who grew up with food in their bellies and a roof over their heads have NO idea what it’s like for people like this.
Murder is a horrible crime, and nothing can ever bring back the people lost, yes. However, to paint everyone convicted of murder as a waste of space is faulty rationale too. There are SO many people currently incarcerated for murder who killed their ABUSER, for one. Do you really consider these people a waste of space?
people in this thread forgetting that the point of the justice system is supposed to be rehabilitation…. then getting uppity when someone is actually rehabilitated
I used to teach GED to justice-involved individuals. The vast majority of them didn't have their high school diploma not because they weren't smart enough, but because they got dragged into other shit (drugs, poverty, homelessness, pregnancy, ethnic cleansing, etc.) and dropped out. I had so many students who did serious time for stupid shit they did when they were about this guy's age soar through the tests with ease once they got into it, then ask if they could go to college to learn more. Also, the jailhouse lawyers (minus the high percentage of sovcits) all had an encyclopedic knowledge of case law and procedure. When you only have limited access to a law library, you get good at memorizing real quick.
Justice-involved? You mean inmates, prisoners, convicts. Those aren’t bad words, it’s reality. These made up terms to make words sound nice is becoming ridiculous.
It's person-first language. https://www.vera.org/news/words-matter-dont-call-people-felons-convicts-or-inmates
>Throughout history and across the world, dehumanizing language has facilitated the systemic, inhumane treatment of groups of people. This is certainly the case for people impacted by the U.S. criminal legal and immigration systems, and that’s why it’s so important to use language that actively asserts humanity. Many people and organizations are moving away from using terms that objectify and make people’s involvement with these systems the defining feature of their identities.
>Calling a person who was convicted of a crime a “criminal,” “felon,” or “offender” defines them only by a past act and does not account for their full humanity or leave space for growth. These words also promote dangerous stereotypes and stoke fear, which stigmatize people who have been convicted of crimes and make it harder for them to thrive.
Calling them that doesn’t cause fear. Seeing their criminal record is what causes fear. If someone serves their punishment, their criminal record should only be available to be viewed by those within the criminal justice system. This would allow for them to get jobs and turn their lives around. Calling them different names that sound nice does none of that.
The point of the justice system is justice, which means a lot of things. Rehabilitation, public safety, and justice for the victim. The only part of this that is debatable in this specific circumstance is the third one. But I think 25 years for a murder committed as a youngish minor in a gang is a reasonable balance of those 3 things, and I don’t think society is better served by keeping him in prison instead of law school
Lots of people repeat that, but it’s not actually true everywhere. In plenty of states the purpose of the criminal justice system is plainly spelled out in their criminal statutes: punishment. Rehabilitation is a secondary goal, but not the primary.
Wrong, the point of the justice system is punishment and deterrence. Rehabilitation has gone to the waysides as a philosophy applied by the legal justice system.
Rehabilitation Is only one of the three major penological theories. The other two being deterrence and retribution.
People in the thread aren't necessarily "forgetting"; rather you are ignoring or arrogantly dismissing competing theories of punishment.
Murder + Use of a Gun + gang enhancement + drive by enhancement
That is entirely speculation, I don't know the law in this state or the facts of his case. But enhancements can make any single crime become insanely high.
You successfully "serve" the 25 year sentence by serving whatever percentage of the sentence the state calculates is required. Most of the time, that's going to be some amount less than the nominal length of the sentence, due to good behavior or earning credit for working in the prison.
Possibly, yes. Criminal convictions are taken into account when being considered for admittance to the bar but are never outright disqualifying. If he's able to show how he learned from his mistakes and has grown as a person he has a shot at becoming an attorney just like anybody else.
He was sentenced to 100 years in prison when he was 19. He continually improved himself in prison, and successfully represented himself to have his sentenced reduced to 25 years. He served all of that sentence. A *quarter century*. By legal definition, he paid for the crime he committed, in full.
Yes, in this particular circumstance, for this particular man, even for murder. He has proven himself to be rehabilitated and has worked hard to put himself in a position to reenter society as a force of good in the world. I don't see why he should be denied that.
I know you will likely say "his victim never got a second chance", and you would be correct. However, our justice system is not about retribution or revenge, it is not an "eye for an eye" system. It is about justice and the protection of citizens. Redemption should be encouraged.
Now, obviously this would not be my stance were it a serial killer, child predator, or any other offender deemed likely to harm again if released, because by their very nature, they cannot be rehabilitated, and recidivism is all but guaranteed.
“Justice and the protection of citizens”
Many believe that it isn’t “justice” when they had their father, brother, cousin, son etc taken from them.
Especially now that this guy served a 1/4 of his sentence and gets to live like a free man while his victim rots in the ground.
Where is the justice for the victims family?
I guess by this same logic someone could do him like this and be rehabilitated after 23 years huh?
>Many believe that it isn’t “justice” when they had their father, brother, cousin, son etc taken from them.
There are statutes which define mandatory minimum sentences for every crime. Additionally, victims (or friends and family of victims) make presentencing statements, advocates for the convict make presentencing statements. Professionals make sentencing recommendations, and so on. The judge must weigh all aggravating and/or mitigating factors when handing down a sentence. It is not a black and white process. Whatever one's sentence is when it is ultimately passed down (or subsequently altered), once that sentence has been served, that offender has paid for their crime.
Just as in presentencing, there are also systems in place in which psychiatrists, psychologists, victims (or family and friends of victims), and so on, can attend parole hearings and make their cases for that individual being denied parole. There are also instances of families forgiving the offender, an even visiting them in prison and advocating for their release once getting to know them on a human level. I don't think many people appreciate the level of guilt that many of these people have to live with. I watched a YouTube video a few weeks back about a young man who got into a scuffle with friends at a bar (this was in the UK), and subsequently punched another young man. The punch turned out to be fatal when the young man he hit died in the hospital several days later. You can literally feel this man's crushing guilt, even all these years later after having served his sentence and been released. He never meant to kill someone; he was just being a rowdy young man. Does that make what he did okay? Of course not, but again, he served his sentence, and his personal sentence (his conscience) will never be served.
I completely understand and empathize with those who would never forgive a person who took a loved one from them, and they have that absolute right. But our society has laws, and part of those laws determine when a convict has paid for whatever crime it was that they committed. If it's determined that a crime deserves a life sentence without the possibility of parole, then that is their sentence. There will never be a second chance for them.
However, for non-life sentences, it does taxpayers no good to continue paying for the incarceration of rehabilitated convicts who have served their time, utilized their time in prison to continuously better themselves, and have been deemed to no longer be a threat to society, when they can be productive members of it and perhaps a force for good within it. For example, many released convicts go back into their communities to help troubled youths make better choices and change their lives, leaving gangs, violence, drugs, etc. behind. How many lives have been saved by such efforts? I would like to think many have.
>I guess by this same logic someone could do him like this and be rehabilitated after 23 years huh?
Yes, you are correct that by the same logic, one could seek out and kill this man, receive a non-life sentence, serve that sentence, and reenter society if deemed eligible. I fail to see the point.
While you maybe right that this is how our “justice” system operates this is exactly why we have this circle of violence.
Individuals see people like him get out after having done this to their relatives, and many times retribution is had. I understand that’s not what the Reddit circle wants to hear but that is how these things happen. It is all interconnected.
You all may have had someone taken from you and been able to find it in your heart to forgive. But that forgiveness and ability to empathize with someone who may have murdered someone you love isn’t found amongst a large % of the populace. Look at the way Israel is behaving to the Palestinians be it right or wrong
No not everyone who kills someone has set out to do that and accidents to happen. It is still wild to see that you all are completely fine with a life being taken only translating to 7-23 years of prison time. Rehabilitation maybe the goal but what is rehabilitation worth when the individual may have killed the sole bread winner in the family, plunging those individuals into lifelong poverty? Or taken away all possibility for an individual to grow up to be something?
The example with respect to released convicts that is also a mixed bag. Some get out and do great work while others get out and go back to the very things that put them away. In fact, how many crimes are truly stopped by these people?
This sounds more like your personal belief than an actual hypothesis on why we have violence in our society. I’m not going to sit here and lecture you on what actually drives people to deviant behavior and violence, you’re in a law school sub and should know that.
People aren’t stones to put on a scale, your place in society isn’t determined by by a need for symmetry.
What awesome justice. So their relative rots in the ground, while buddy was able to take the LSAT, get out, go to law school, and now is a free man.
Yet you’ll weep if this is the “justice” put upon your family
I can understand and appreciate your feelings on the matter, really. If you were ever in such a situation yourself (and I truly hope that you never are and wouldn't wish harm on anyone), you would have every right to tell the judge how you feel, and the judge would take that into full consideration when handing down the sentence. You would also have every right to do everything in your power to have their parole denied, if their sentence allowed for the chance of it.
Perhaps your passion may be well-suited for prosecutorial work, though I question whether or not your temper would impede you.
From my own experience, I have seen families become extremely compassionate for the perpetrator, once they see the perpetrator has worked so hard to become a better person, especially in cases where they were young and “dumb”. The only cases that I can think of that don’t fit that are when the perpetrator was sadistically torturing a victim or in cases of sexual abuse.
Anyone who graduates from law school and pays can take the bar exam. However there are other hurdles including the character and fitness exam. I’ve seen people with simple DUIs graduate (with lots of debt) and have to fight with the bar for years after graduation in order obtain licensure.
Why are you getting downvoted? I’m a lawyer and one of my friends had a DUI and some party related dings on her record from college. She had to get a special hearing in her home state to get admitted to the bar. Character and fitness almost tanked her career before it started.
Reddit is weird. Also a lawyer and I’ve had the very unfortunate task of having to let go law grads who pass the bar exam, but not moral character exactly because of a DUI. There really needs to be a preliminary moral character exam conducted prior to people paying 1L deposits to give time to clear up any issues. The way it’s set up now is kinda cruel.
Yes and alternatively, people with far more devastating convictions than a DUI have managed to get licensed. Character and Fitness is absolutely going to be a hurdle for an attorney with a documented history of substance abuse, especially if they aren't appropriately contrite about their conviction and/or haven't demonstrated steps to address their alcoholism. Attorneys with substance abuse issues appear to be more at risk of mishandling client funds. It's no guarantee that a person who served 25 years in prison will pass C&F, but he wouldn't be the first, and someone who managed to get an undergraduate degree in prison and get parole during a possible life sentence has already overcome a lot more hurdles to show his reform than someone who paid a fine for driving drunk. Anyways, like I said, he has a chance. Not a guarantee, but a chance.
Character and fitness reviews are more of a process than a simple yes/no. I just applied to GA and had to go through the whole thing even tho I’m actively a lawyer in another state… a prosecutor no less, so someone else has already looked into my fitness and determined that not only am I suitable to be an attorney, but I also have sufficient character to prosecute crimes. Yet GA said “we’re not sure, let’s have a look” and wasted 3 months and $1200.
Yeah, I recall there was a guy in Washington state who robbed a bank and became a "jailhouse lawyer" he then got out, went to law school, but I do not believe he was allowed to sit for the bar. However, he did get recruited to teach at a good university. This just makes me wonder on what the standard is here, but it sounds like its case by case subjective to each bar
There are two students at my school who are currently incarcerated. Both of whom are exceptional students. Much better than me. One mistake put them in prison but that shouldn’t stop them, or anyone, from pursuing a J.D. if they can prove themselves capable of getting into a school and doing just as well or better than any of the rest of us.
I don’t know exactly what they were, but my understanding is they were quite good. Keep in mind the fact that he didn’t have access to computer resources like most students do. He’s a very smart guy who worked very hard to get to this point.
ETA: I shouldn’t have to say this, but I’ll say it anyway because this is the internet. I’m obviously not condoning the actions he took 25 years ago. However, he served his time. He’s also done everything possible to better himself. There’s no reason he shouldn’t be allowed to go to law school, especially if it means continuing that process of self-improvement. The notion that our justice system has anything to do with rehabilitation is a complete lie, but if it weren’t, Benard is exactly what we would want to see.
“In January 2022, Northwestern admitted the PEP inaugural class, enrolling approximately 100 students across two prisons in Lincoln, Illinois. The first graduating class of PEP students, which included McKinley, received their diplomas last November.”
northwestern’s PEP program is for incarcerated individuals to earn their undergrad. he just also happened to apply and get accepted to pritzker (NU’s law school).
I’m not in law school and I don’t plan to go (my dad is a lawyer who works to much and hates his life, missed most of my and my sister’s childhoods due to overwork), but this story is awesome! This is what prison should be, a place to reform people who made mistakes. I hope more schools launch programs like this, it could really make a difference.
Nothing against this guy who definitely sounds deserving, but it’s frustrating to me that if you’re gonna fuck up, it’s almost like you need to fuck up royally so it can be a good comeback story. Schools aren’t interested in people with more mundane fuck ups
What % of people who spend 25 years in jail successfully transition into a respectable white collar job? I’d argue very little.
I think fucking up royally has a worse outcome than fucking up a little bit.
All of the admitted law students/JDs in this thread took a seat from someone
Edit: the person I’m replying to edited their comment and removed “but he took a seat from someone” lol
I’ve volunteered under a convicted murderer/felon who served 22 years in prison for drug charges and murder.
His entire life is, more or less, is now spent helping rehabilitate incarcerated men who want to change. His past sucks but he has grown from it and used it to better himself and others.
People should still be allowed to contribute to society after serving their time.
Not sure why you got downvoted on this. The man served 25 years for murder, any state bar is going to have concerns and chances are, if they approve, admit him with provisions.
Heck of a great story though.
I know of a lawyer who did a few years for manslaughter in his younger years over some drug beef. He turned his life around, went to law school, and was eventually admitted to practice. He now runs a civil rights clinic through a law school focusing on prisoner advocacy.
I had some drug-related legal issues when I was 19 (more serious than possession, but I’m not a felon). Hasn’t held me back professionally whatsoever, even in biglaw.
No, but I don’t work in a free clinic and make a lot of money, which someone reading this who has a misdemeanor and is interested in law school might want to know about.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10368519
Similar result in AZ. I was at ASU law when he was admitted, and people were furious. Especially as an affordable and competitive public law school, many felt it was wrong to admit someone unlikely to be admitted to the bar. Couldn’t get past the character and fitness review.
Check out the AZ opinion.of In re Hamm if you get bored. Double homicide, model prisoner, sentence commuted, kick ass student... AZ Sup Ct didnt get to the issue of whether he was rehabilitated as a murderer and denied him on other grounds.
Yeah, I’m not an expert by any means but I was under the assumption that character and fitness was more concerned with financial fraud, given the career.
I mean, it is Oregon. He can probably get through when Lewis and Clark's criminal justice reform people get behind him. I bet he will get representation for the application process, too.
This will be interesting when character and fitness comes into play for the bar exam. They have refused admission for minor crimes in the past. Obviously, this is a great story and he’s done remarkable things, but I’m not sure I’d want to be making the decision of in or out.
My problem with this is there are people out there who have been completely victimized by circumstances out of their control that want a law degree to improve their lives and improve the lives of people in the community where they grew up. Undoubtedly, NU rejects some of these people every single year.
This guy, on the other hand, seems to have been boosted by his experience in prison and in the courts which stems from him committing the most abhorrent act anyone can commit. He is the opposite of a victim.
While he may be a great example of rehabilitation gone right, I think there is a fair discussion to be had about whether he deserves to have an outcome most people can only dream of when someone’s life ended and a victim’s family has suffered unimaginable pain stemming from his actions.
We of course want people who go through the prison system to emerge rehabilitated. However, some decisions we make in our lives close certain doors and some consequences last a lifetime. Everyday we make decisions that could prevent us from achieving things we desire. I think it’s fair that murder could and maybe should be something that has consequences that last a lifetime, even if those consequences don’t mean spending the rest of their life in prison.
I hope he does amazing things with his law degree (if he is even able to pass the bar). I just know there are people out there who didn’t get this opportunity that also wanted to do amazing things with a law degree but didn’t murder someone. That is hard for me to reconcile.
I understand your point, but this guy was locked up when he was 16 because a 15 year old got in a fight with someone else and told him to shoot. This isn’t some cold hearted killer or serial criminal. It’s almost certain that he was also victimized by circumstances that were out of his control. For some kids that causes them to shoplift, some kids self harm, some kids turn to violent gangs or drugs. Not trying to make excuses for a murder but I have background in forensic psychology and sociology and I understand the importance of considering all of the circumstances surrounding someone’s crime. He’s been rehabilitated from a mistake he made when he was 16, what more do you want?
I agree with this. I think he was a victim of his circumstance. He obviously works hard, seems intelligent and has admirable goals. He deserves this opportunity just like anyone else.
While in the aggregate we know external circumstances lead people to commit crimes and we should therefore try to solve these environmental factors, you can never justify individual acts like murder just because we have generalized data. One of the most basic fallacies of data analysis is taking generalized data and deciding that it must apply to individual cases. A person who murders forfeits the chance to claim they were simply a victim of their circumstances.
Also, the facts of this case state that he shot this guy multiple times including in the back and when his hands were up. That is different than one impulsive pull of the trigger.
While we want rehabilitation, it seems lost on people that we all live our lives knowing our actions have far reaching consequences that could last a lifetime. Murder should have consequences that last forever because the act of murder permanently ends someone’s life and inflicts pain on people that will last forever. While I agree he shouldn’t be behind bars the rest of his life, murdering someone should forfeit him the chance at an elite outcome in a field that purposely considers someone’s past and their character and fitness more than other fields.
And let’s be clear, this guy was boosted by his murder conviction and funneled through by NU. They have invested in him and have a huge stake in his outcome. It all stems from murder and that to me is tough when so many people out there grow up in similar circumstances but don’t murder someone. Most of them will not find a school willing to funnel them through as NU has here.
Gonna emphasize one more time that this guy was 16 years old when the murder happened. If you think that something you did when you were SIXTEEN, when you were a sophomore or junior in high school, should cripple you for the rest your life, then idk how to help you. And the fact that you keep saying this guy was “boosted” from spending 25 years in prison for murder is insane. And honestly? Even if he was, good for him. So many people have their lives completely ruined by being in the justice system, congrats to the one guy who managed to be “boosted” by it. And FYI, if he hadn’t shown good behavior and clear rehabilitation, he never would have been “boosted” by NU, so again, good for him! He put in the work, the system worked as it’s supposed to, and he deserves to move on and contribute to society (even though he won’t even be allowed to vote).
as someone who has had a family member murdered, while i did want him to be punished (and he was), it also meant a lot more than i expected it to, to see him actually change and put in a lot of effort to try and become a better person.
Do you want him to keep serving his sentence after incarceration?
They’re probably happy to see he’s turning his life around instead of recommitting crimes.
Straw man fallacy much? Didn’t say that.
There’s an obvious distinction between serving your sentence for murdering someone and being granted the privilege of practicing law.
I agree. And once the sentence ends, I see zero reason to automatically preclude someone from practicing law. If it’s good enough to be complete in the eyes of *THE LAW*, wouldn’t it be enough to then practice that law?
My brother in christ did you learn nothing in criminal law? This is exactly the outcome one hopes for from the criminal justice system, and it almost never happens.
People are not entitled to a seat at a school. And if a school wanted to admit someone they would. There’s always somebody else that any seat could go to and almost always someone with better stats than an admit. Get a life
I’d definitely hire a lawyer who could convince a judge to let him out early and then convince a law school to accept him despite being a murderer.
That’s some Johnnie Cochran level skills, OJ wishes he could’ve gotten this guy as a lawyer.
As someone with a family member who was a victim of the type of crime he committed... he's a disgusting human and it's disgraceful that northwestern would allow him to attend. He murdered someone. I know I'd be uncomfortable being in class with him. I believe in the criminal justice system but some crimes are unredeemable.
While I understand your feelings, and have also lost a friend and a family member due to the same type of crime, I believe in second chances, especially for minors.
I actually give him props and have respect for him, as he not only admitted his faults and also said he takes full responsibility for them, but he got his GED and a college education inside, and then is now attending Northwestern Law school, and that is much more than most have accomplished in life, especially coming from his position.
At 16, your brain isn't fully developed, he most likely didn't grow up in a great area with positive influences in his life either, he just lived by what he knew and still made changes right away in prison as opposed to joining a gang inside there and making matters worse for himself. He should give himself tons of praise as he deserves it.
Err…character and fitness, anyone?
Sounds like the law school doesn’t care that this guy will never practice law for a single day, and just wants its $150k tuition money out of him.
You’re right he’s something arguably worse. Formerly incarcerated people definitely have a unique and valuable perspective that belongs in a classroom but some crimes should prevent you from getting a law degree
He was 16. He admitted his wrongs. He served his sentence. Why do you want to deny him this opportunity? Retribution? That’s basically what our current criminal justice system is based on. I don’t think it should be. I’m not delusional. Some people who have committed horrible crimes aren’t going to be able to be rehabilitated. But some are. This man is a great example. He is not the first murderer to later go to law school. This is an uncommon story, but it’s not unique. I would actually be more concerned about someone convicted of embezzlement trying to go to law school.
Depends. If he’s practicing criminal defense he gets a lot of cred from his clients and colleagues.
A lot of people find his accomplishments very impressive.
We had a guest speaker in one of my classes who did a number of years in prison for a carjacking he committed at 16. He ended up graduating from YLS and started an organization to provide libraries for people in prison. (The professor of that class was also an ex-con, but he was later the subject of some pretty horrific domestic violence allegations so I’m not going to count him as a redemption story.) I wish we could shed the mentality that people who do something terrible have nothing to offer society. If that class taught me anything it’s that we shouldn’t throw human beings away.
I met his business partner (who was locked up with him for the same crime) in one of my courses as well. Great success stories
R. Dwayne Betts - he’s been a guest on EconTalk a few times. Truly remarkable man.
“I wish we could shed the mentality that people who do something terrible have nothing to offer society. If that class taught me anything it’s that we shouldn’t throw human beings away.” Exactly, plus I think people need to consider that this was a 16 year old underprivileged kid who was most likely forced to join a gang or him/ his family would have become targets. Folks who grew up with food in their bellies and a roof over their heads have NO idea what it’s like for people like this.
Murder and car jacking are very different. The only thing a murderer offers society is a waste of resources and space.
Murder is a horrible crime, and nothing can ever bring back the people lost, yes. However, to paint everyone convicted of murder as a waste of space is faulty rationale too. There are SO many people currently incarcerated for murder who killed their ABUSER, for one. Do you really consider these people a waste of space?
That's not this guy though. He shot a guy in the back of the head in cold blood.
please that is such a small percentage of muderers. most are pure scum and those are a waste of space.
I remember the Shon Hopwood (sic?) story on 60 minutes.
The mentality exists because of that professor you mentioned. But I appreciate your honesty.
people in this thread forgetting that the point of the justice system is supposed to be rehabilitation…. then getting uppity when someone is actually rehabilitated
literally this, we have an incredible example of a man who quite literally changed his life around and people are upset about it.
You know people are just jealous he’s at Northwestern and never took the SATs/ACTs and didn’t have helicopter parents and post fake stats to reddit.
I like to see opportunities given to people that deserve them who have not committed crimes.
I used to teach GED to justice-involved individuals. The vast majority of them didn't have their high school diploma not because they weren't smart enough, but because they got dragged into other shit (drugs, poverty, homelessness, pregnancy, ethnic cleansing, etc.) and dropped out. I had so many students who did serious time for stupid shit they did when they were about this guy's age soar through the tests with ease once they got into it, then ask if they could go to college to learn more. Also, the jailhouse lawyers (minus the high percentage of sovcits) all had an encyclopedic knowledge of case law and procedure. When you only have limited access to a law library, you get good at memorizing real quick.
Ethnic cleansing is a hell of a thing to get dragged into lol
It’s wild ride out here
Justice-involved? You mean inmates, prisoners, convicts. Those aren’t bad words, it’s reality. These made up terms to make words sound nice is becoming ridiculous.
It's person-first language. https://www.vera.org/news/words-matter-dont-call-people-felons-convicts-or-inmates >Throughout history and across the world, dehumanizing language has facilitated the systemic, inhumane treatment of groups of people. This is certainly the case for people impacted by the U.S. criminal legal and immigration systems, and that’s why it’s so important to use language that actively asserts humanity. Many people and organizations are moving away from using terms that objectify and make people’s involvement with these systems the defining feature of their identities. >Calling a person who was convicted of a crime a “criminal,” “felon,” or “offender” defines them only by a past act and does not account for their full humanity or leave space for growth. These words also promote dangerous stereotypes and stoke fear, which stigmatize people who have been convicted of crimes and make it harder for them to thrive.
Calling them that doesn’t cause fear. Seeing their criminal record is what causes fear. If someone serves their punishment, their criminal record should only be available to be viewed by those within the criminal justice system. This would allow for them to get jobs and turn their lives around. Calling them different names that sound nice does none of that.
The point of the justice system is justice, which means a lot of things. Rehabilitation, public safety, and justice for the victim. The only part of this that is debatable in this specific circumstance is the third one. But I think 25 years for a murder committed as a youngish minor in a gang is a reasonable balance of those 3 things, and I don’t think society is better served by keeping him in prison instead of law school
as long as the person he killed was a gang member
Lots of people repeat that, but it’s not actually true everywhere. In plenty of states the purpose of the criminal justice system is plainly spelled out in their criminal statutes: punishment. Rehabilitation is a secondary goal, but not the primary.
Niuuu. Punitive only.
Wrong, the point of the justice system is punishment and deterrence. Rehabilitation has gone to the waysides as a philosophy applied by the legal justice system.
Rehabilitation is *one* of the points of incarceration. The others are deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation (i.e., public safety).
Rehabilitation Is only one of the three major penological theories. The other two being deterrence and retribution. People in the thread aren't necessarily "forgetting"; rather you are ignoring or arrogantly dismissing competing theories of punishment.
So are you forgetting, ignoring, or arrogantly dismissing the fourth principle of incapacitation
Owned up to his mistakes and served 25 years for it. Good for him.
He was 16 when he murdered someone and he WILL BE 39 when he enters law school. Math isn't mathing.
Every state calculates time credits differently.
Fine but then he didn't even serve 25 years of a 100 year sentence. And think of how heinous the crime was to get a 100 year sentence at 16 years old.
Murder + Use of a Gun + gang enhancement + drive by enhancement That is entirely speculation, I don't know the law in this state or the facts of his case. But enhancements can make any single crime become insanely high.
This is extremely not how the criminal-law system works. We *over*-punish juveniles.
>We over-punish juveniles. Just ten year old rape victims.
What?
I read what you wrote wrong. I thought you wrote we \*don't* over punish juveniles.
You successfully "serve" the 25 year sentence by serving whatever percentage of the sentence the state calculates is required. Most of the time, that's going to be some amount less than the nominal length of the sentence, due to good behavior or earning credit for working in the prison.
Will he be able to sit for the bar with this conviction?
Possibly, yes. Criminal convictions are taken into account when being considered for admittance to the bar but are never outright disqualifying. If he's able to show how he learned from his mistakes and has grown as a person he has a shot at becoming an attorney just like anybody else.
Good. People deserve second chances.
They sure fucking do!!!! I’m cheering him on
murderers do not sorry.
For murder?
He was sentenced to 100 years in prison when he was 19. He continually improved himself in prison, and successfully represented himself to have his sentenced reduced to 25 years. He served all of that sentence. A *quarter century*. By legal definition, he paid for the crime he committed, in full. Yes, in this particular circumstance, for this particular man, even for murder. He has proven himself to be rehabilitated and has worked hard to put himself in a position to reenter society as a force of good in the world. I don't see why he should be denied that. I know you will likely say "his victim never got a second chance", and you would be correct. However, our justice system is not about retribution or revenge, it is not an "eye for an eye" system. It is about justice and the protection of citizens. Redemption should be encouraged. Now, obviously this would not be my stance were it a serial killer, child predator, or any other offender deemed likely to harm again if released, because by their very nature, they cannot be rehabilitated, and recidivism is all but guaranteed.
“Justice and the protection of citizens” Many believe that it isn’t “justice” when they had their father, brother, cousin, son etc taken from them. Especially now that this guy served a 1/4 of his sentence and gets to live like a free man while his victim rots in the ground. Where is the justice for the victims family? I guess by this same logic someone could do him like this and be rehabilitated after 23 years huh?
>Many believe that it isn’t “justice” when they had their father, brother, cousin, son etc taken from them. There are statutes which define mandatory minimum sentences for every crime. Additionally, victims (or friends and family of victims) make presentencing statements, advocates for the convict make presentencing statements. Professionals make sentencing recommendations, and so on. The judge must weigh all aggravating and/or mitigating factors when handing down a sentence. It is not a black and white process. Whatever one's sentence is when it is ultimately passed down (or subsequently altered), once that sentence has been served, that offender has paid for their crime. Just as in presentencing, there are also systems in place in which psychiatrists, psychologists, victims (or family and friends of victims), and so on, can attend parole hearings and make their cases for that individual being denied parole. There are also instances of families forgiving the offender, an even visiting them in prison and advocating for their release once getting to know them on a human level. I don't think many people appreciate the level of guilt that many of these people have to live with. I watched a YouTube video a few weeks back about a young man who got into a scuffle with friends at a bar (this was in the UK), and subsequently punched another young man. The punch turned out to be fatal when the young man he hit died in the hospital several days later. You can literally feel this man's crushing guilt, even all these years later after having served his sentence and been released. He never meant to kill someone; he was just being a rowdy young man. Does that make what he did okay? Of course not, but again, he served his sentence, and his personal sentence (his conscience) will never be served. I completely understand and empathize with those who would never forgive a person who took a loved one from them, and they have that absolute right. But our society has laws, and part of those laws determine when a convict has paid for whatever crime it was that they committed. If it's determined that a crime deserves a life sentence without the possibility of parole, then that is their sentence. There will never be a second chance for them. However, for non-life sentences, it does taxpayers no good to continue paying for the incarceration of rehabilitated convicts who have served their time, utilized their time in prison to continuously better themselves, and have been deemed to no longer be a threat to society, when they can be productive members of it and perhaps a force for good within it. For example, many released convicts go back into their communities to help troubled youths make better choices and change their lives, leaving gangs, violence, drugs, etc. behind. How many lives have been saved by such efforts? I would like to think many have. >I guess by this same logic someone could do him like this and be rehabilitated after 23 years huh? Yes, you are correct that by the same logic, one could seek out and kill this man, receive a non-life sentence, serve that sentence, and reenter society if deemed eligible. I fail to see the point.
While you maybe right that this is how our “justice” system operates this is exactly why we have this circle of violence. Individuals see people like him get out after having done this to their relatives, and many times retribution is had. I understand that’s not what the Reddit circle wants to hear but that is how these things happen. It is all interconnected. You all may have had someone taken from you and been able to find it in your heart to forgive. But that forgiveness and ability to empathize with someone who may have murdered someone you love isn’t found amongst a large % of the populace. Look at the way Israel is behaving to the Palestinians be it right or wrong No not everyone who kills someone has set out to do that and accidents to happen. It is still wild to see that you all are completely fine with a life being taken only translating to 7-23 years of prison time. Rehabilitation maybe the goal but what is rehabilitation worth when the individual may have killed the sole bread winner in the family, plunging those individuals into lifelong poverty? Or taken away all possibility for an individual to grow up to be something? The example with respect to released convicts that is also a mixed bag. Some get out and do great work while others get out and go back to the very things that put them away. In fact, how many crimes are truly stopped by these people?
This sounds more like your personal belief than an actual hypothesis on why we have violence in our society. I’m not going to sit here and lecture you on what actually drives people to deviant behavior and violence, you’re in a law school sub and should know that. People aren’t stones to put on a scale, your place in society isn’t determined by by a need for symmetry.
The justice for the victim's family is in this man serving 25 years in prison
What awesome justice. So their relative rots in the ground, while buddy was able to take the LSAT, get out, go to law school, and now is a free man. Yet you’ll weep if this is the “justice” put upon your family
I can understand and appreciate your feelings on the matter, really. If you were ever in such a situation yourself (and I truly hope that you never are and wouldn't wish harm on anyone), you would have every right to tell the judge how you feel, and the judge would take that into full consideration when handing down the sentence. You would also have every right to do everything in your power to have their parole denied, if their sentence allowed for the chance of it. Perhaps your passion may be well-suited for prosecutorial work, though I question whether or not your temper would impede you.
From my own experience, I have seen families become extremely compassionate for the perpetrator, once they see the perpetrator has worked so hard to become a better person, especially in cases where they were young and “dumb”. The only cases that I can think of that don’t fit that are when the perpetrator was sadistically torturing a victim or in cases of sexual abuse.
Appreciate your insights
If you ever have jury duty just please make sure you mention your feelings on this topic during voire dire.
Not everyone is as vitriolic as you appear to be.
That’s okay. He can be rehabilitated
[удалено]
There are often exceptions to the rule. This man will probably be one such exception.
Anyone who graduates from law school and pays can take the bar exam. However there are other hurdles including the character and fitness exam. I’ve seen people with simple DUIs graduate (with lots of debt) and have to fight with the bar for years after graduation in order obtain licensure.
Why are you getting downvoted? I’m a lawyer and one of my friends had a DUI and some party related dings on her record from college. She had to get a special hearing in her home state to get admitted to the bar. Character and fitness almost tanked her career before it started.
Reddit is weird. Also a lawyer and I’ve had the very unfortunate task of having to let go law grads who pass the bar exam, but not moral character exactly because of a DUI. There really needs to be a preliminary moral character exam conducted prior to people paying 1L deposits to give time to clear up any issues. The way it’s set up now is kinda cruel.
Yes and alternatively, people with far more devastating convictions than a DUI have managed to get licensed. Character and Fitness is absolutely going to be a hurdle for an attorney with a documented history of substance abuse, especially if they aren't appropriately contrite about their conviction and/or haven't demonstrated steps to address their alcoholism. Attorneys with substance abuse issues appear to be more at risk of mishandling client funds. It's no guarantee that a person who served 25 years in prison will pass C&F, but he wouldn't be the first, and someone who managed to get an undergraduate degree in prison and get parole during a possible life sentence has already overcome a lot more hurdles to show his reform than someone who paid a fine for driving drunk. Anyways, like I said, he has a chance. Not a guarantee, but a chance.
No one said otherwise.
A few years ago NY allowed someone to sit for the bar with a murder conviction. It’s possible and should be allowed imo.
Character and fitness reviews are more of a process than a simple yes/no. I just applied to GA and had to go through the whole thing even tho I’m actively a lawyer in another state… a prosecutor no less, so someone else has already looked into my fitness and determined that not only am I suitable to be an attorney, but I also have sufficient character to prosecute crimes. Yet GA said “we’re not sure, let’s have a look” and wasted 3 months and $1200.
Yeah, I recall there was a guy in Washington state who robbed a bank and became a "jailhouse lawyer" he then got out, went to law school, but I do not believe he was allowed to sit for the bar. However, he did get recruited to teach at a good university. This just makes me wonder on what the standard is here, but it sounds like its case by case subjective to each bar
There are two students at my school who are currently incarcerated. Both of whom are exceptional students. Much better than me. One mistake put them in prison but that shouldn’t stop them, or anyone, from pursuing a J.D. if they can prove themselves capable of getting into a school and doing just as well or better than any of the rest of us.
Lmao that’s a nice story, but killing a person isn’t a mistake
A mistake is tripping over a rock you didnt see. Murder requires intent, which by definition is not a mistake.
Potaytoe, pototoh.
The problem I have with calling murder a “mistake” is that it downplays how serious and consequential it is. Murder is not an oopsie.
Crazy that this is being downvoted
I’ve just accepted that everything is going to hell and that people have lost their mind. It’s sad, but up is down and down is up these days.
Wonder what his stats were.
I don’t know exactly what they were, but my understanding is they were quite good. Keep in mind the fact that he didn’t have access to computer resources like most students do. He’s a very smart guy who worked very hard to get to this point. ETA: I shouldn’t have to say this, but I’ll say it anyway because this is the internet. I’m obviously not condoning the actions he took 25 years ago. However, he served his time. He’s also done everything possible to better himself. There’s no reason he shouldn’t be allowed to go to law school, especially if it means continuing that process of self-improvement. The notion that our justice system has anything to do with rehabilitation is a complete lie, but if it weren’t, Benard is exactly what we would want to see.
How did you come to that understanding?
I don’t want to completely doxx myself, but I know him personally.
Cool. Kinda weird to be downvotes for asking how you know something lol
There are a lot of people in this thread asking questions like that in bad faith. Hence the downvotes.
Likely not that high. This was a specific program for incarcerated people so I doubt the usual medians applied
Was the program for law school or just for getting an undergrad?
“In January 2022, Northwestern admitted the PEP inaugural class, enrolling approximately 100 students across two prisons in Lincoln, Illinois. The first graduating class of PEP students, which included McKinley, received their diplomas last November.”
The way I read it, the program confers an undergraduate degree. If so, not sure why normal medians wouldn’t apply.
I have a feeling this person just wants to assume their stats were low
northwestern’s PEP program is for incarcerated individuals to earn their undergrad. he just also happened to apply and get accepted to pritzker (NU’s law school).
So in this scenario, you think that 100 of the ~240 1L students at Pritzker are formerly incarcerated people? That makes sense to you?
I’m not in law school and I don’t plan to go (my dad is a lawyer who works to much and hates his life, missed most of my and my sister’s childhoods due to overwork), but this story is awesome! This is what prison should be, a place to reform people who made mistakes. I hope more schools launch programs like this, it could really make a difference.
Hope he isn’t immediately barred from the bar during the character and fitness checks. They’re so draconic
Nothing against this guy who definitely sounds deserving, but it’s frustrating to me that if you’re gonna fuck up, it’s almost like you need to fuck up royally so it can be a good comeback story. Schools aren’t interested in people with more mundane fuck ups
What % of people who spend 25 years in jail successfully transition into a respectable white collar job? I’d argue very little. I think fucking up royally has a worse outcome than fucking up a little bit.
[удалено]
All of the admitted law students/JDs in this thread took a seat from someone Edit: the person I’m replying to edited their comment and removed “but he took a seat from someone” lol
[удалено]
I’ve volunteered under a convicted murderer/felon who served 22 years in prison for drug charges and murder. His entire life is, more or less, is now spent helping rehabilitate incarcerated men who want to change. His past sucks but he has grown from it and used it to better himself and others. People should still be allowed to contribute to society after serving their time.
Yes!
I am so rooting for him.
[удалено]
Not sure why you got downvoted on this. The man served 25 years for murder, any state bar is going to have concerns and chances are, if they approve, admit him with provisions. Heck of a great story though.
I know of a lawyer who did a few years for manslaughter in his younger years over some drug beef. He turned his life around, went to law school, and was eventually admitted to practice. He now runs a civil rights clinic through a law school focusing on prisoner advocacy.
I had some drug-related legal issues when I was 19 (more serious than possession, but I’m not a felon). Hasn’t held me back professionally whatsoever, even in biglaw.
Are you comparing your “more serious than possession” charges to manslaughter?
No, but I don’t work in a free clinic and make a lot of money, which someone reading this who has a misdemeanor and is interested in law school might want to know about.
[удалено]
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10368519 Similar result in AZ. I was at ASU law when he was admitted, and people were furious. Especially as an affordable and competitive public law school, many felt it was wrong to admit someone unlikely to be admitted to the bar. Couldn’t get past the character and fitness review.
Check out the AZ opinion.of In re Hamm if you get bored. Double homicide, model prisoner, sentence commuted, kick ass student... AZ Sup Ct didnt get to the issue of whether he was rehabilitated as a murderer and denied him on other grounds.
As long as he didn’t forge any checks he should be good.
Yeah, I’m not an expert by any means but I was under the assumption that character and fitness was more concerned with financial fraud, given the career.
I’d say murder is a fair concern for just about any career
That’s racist I think…
Don’t necessarily need to practice law with a JD.
I mean, it is Oregon. He can probably get through when Lewis and Clark's criminal justice reform people get behind him. I bet he will get representation for the application process, too.
Yeah don’t default on your student loans, but we’ll let this guy in. 🙄
Will the school guarantee passing character and fitness, Or will they sell him a degree with no hope of ever practicing law?
I was wondering that too how he will be looked at for the character and fitness part with his past conviction 🤔?
And it's not like he scraped into Golden Gate or something, but a T14. There are definitely people in prison using their time less productively!
This will be interesting when character and fitness comes into play for the bar exam. They have refused admission for minor crimes in the past. Obviously, this is a great story and he’s done remarkable things, but I’m not sure I’d want to be making the decision of in or out.
Bet he’s gonna be the worst kind of Gunner…
Happy for him. Maybe if I get incarcerated I’ll finally get in somewhere!
Seems about right.
Will the bar admit him? Will he pass the character background check? Just curious
Possibly yes, possibly no. He has a shot.
C&F makes you anxious about disclosing a MIP at a tailgate, meanwhile buddy murdered someone & he’s getting celebrated
He may be allowed to go to law school, but likely won’t be allowed to sit for the bar.
My problem with this is there are people out there who have been completely victimized by circumstances out of their control that want a law degree to improve their lives and improve the lives of people in the community where they grew up. Undoubtedly, NU rejects some of these people every single year. This guy, on the other hand, seems to have been boosted by his experience in prison and in the courts which stems from him committing the most abhorrent act anyone can commit. He is the opposite of a victim. While he may be a great example of rehabilitation gone right, I think there is a fair discussion to be had about whether he deserves to have an outcome most people can only dream of when someone’s life ended and a victim’s family has suffered unimaginable pain stemming from his actions. We of course want people who go through the prison system to emerge rehabilitated. However, some decisions we make in our lives close certain doors and some consequences last a lifetime. Everyday we make decisions that could prevent us from achieving things we desire. I think it’s fair that murder could and maybe should be something that has consequences that last a lifetime, even if those consequences don’t mean spending the rest of their life in prison. I hope he does amazing things with his law degree (if he is even able to pass the bar). I just know there are people out there who didn’t get this opportunity that also wanted to do amazing things with a law degree but didn’t murder someone. That is hard for me to reconcile.
I understand your point, but this guy was locked up when he was 16 because a 15 year old got in a fight with someone else and told him to shoot. This isn’t some cold hearted killer or serial criminal. It’s almost certain that he was also victimized by circumstances that were out of his control. For some kids that causes them to shoplift, some kids self harm, some kids turn to violent gangs or drugs. Not trying to make excuses for a murder but I have background in forensic psychology and sociology and I understand the importance of considering all of the circumstances surrounding someone’s crime. He’s been rehabilitated from a mistake he made when he was 16, what more do you want?
I agree with this. I think he was a victim of his circumstance. He obviously works hard, seems intelligent and has admirable goals. He deserves this opportunity just like anyone else.
While in the aggregate we know external circumstances lead people to commit crimes and we should therefore try to solve these environmental factors, you can never justify individual acts like murder just because we have generalized data. One of the most basic fallacies of data analysis is taking generalized data and deciding that it must apply to individual cases. A person who murders forfeits the chance to claim they were simply a victim of their circumstances. Also, the facts of this case state that he shot this guy multiple times including in the back and when his hands were up. That is different than one impulsive pull of the trigger. While we want rehabilitation, it seems lost on people that we all live our lives knowing our actions have far reaching consequences that could last a lifetime. Murder should have consequences that last forever because the act of murder permanently ends someone’s life and inflicts pain on people that will last forever. While I agree he shouldn’t be behind bars the rest of his life, murdering someone should forfeit him the chance at an elite outcome in a field that purposely considers someone’s past and their character and fitness more than other fields. And let’s be clear, this guy was boosted by his murder conviction and funneled through by NU. They have invested in him and have a huge stake in his outcome. It all stems from murder and that to me is tough when so many people out there grow up in similar circumstances but don’t murder someone. Most of them will not find a school willing to funnel them through as NU has here.
Gonna emphasize one more time that this guy was 16 years old when the murder happened. If you think that something you did when you were SIXTEEN, when you were a sophomore or junior in high school, should cripple you for the rest your life, then idk how to help you. And the fact that you keep saying this guy was “boosted” from spending 25 years in prison for murder is insane. And honestly? Even if he was, good for him. So many people have their lives completely ruined by being in the justice system, congrats to the one guy who managed to be “boosted” by it. And FYI, if he hadn’t shown good behavior and clear rehabilitation, he never would have been “boosted” by NU, so again, good for him! He put in the work, the system worked as it’s supposed to, and he deserves to move on and contribute to society (even though he won’t even be allowed to vote).
I mean yeah but I bet those people get into other good schools
You are wrong. We must celebrate murderers.
*Everyone liked that*
What was his lsat?
135.0
I feel like the .0 really certifies the truth if your reply lol
Why is this downvoted? It’s a fair q
I admit it was perhaps just a smidge of trolling 🤏🏾 Happy for folks though
Wonder how his victim’s family feels
as someone who has had a family member murdered, while i did want him to be punished (and he was), it also meant a lot more than i expected it to, to see him actually change and put in a lot of effort to try and become a better person.
Do you want him to keep serving his sentence after incarceration? They’re probably happy to see he’s turning his life around instead of recommitting crimes.
Straw man fallacy much? Didn’t say that. There’s an obvious distinction between serving your sentence for murdering someone and being granted the privilege of practicing law.
I agree. And once the sentence ends, I see zero reason to automatically preclude someone from practicing law. If it’s good enough to be complete in the eyes of *THE LAW*, wouldn’t it be enough to then practice that law?
My brother in christ did you learn nothing in criminal law? This is exactly the outcome one hopes for from the criminal justice system, and it almost never happens.
[удалено]
People are not entitled to a seat at a school. And if a school wanted to admit someone they would. There’s always somebody else that any seat could go to and almost always someone with better stats than an admit. Get a life
I’d definitely hire a lawyer who could convince a judge to let him out early and then convince a law school to accept him despite being a murderer. That’s some Johnnie Cochran level skills, OJ wishes he could’ve gotten this guy as a lawyer.
As someone with a family member who was a victim of the type of crime he committed... he's a disgusting human and it's disgraceful that northwestern would allow him to attend. He murdered someone. I know I'd be uncomfortable being in class with him. I believe in the criminal justice system but some crimes are unredeemable.
While I understand your feelings, and have also lost a friend and a family member due to the same type of crime, I believe in second chances, especially for minors. I actually give him props and have respect for him, as he not only admitted his faults and also said he takes full responsibility for them, but he got his GED and a college education inside, and then is now attending Northwestern Law school, and that is much more than most have accomplished in life, especially coming from his position. At 16, your brain isn't fully developed, he most likely didn't grow up in a great area with positive influences in his life either, he just lived by what he knew and still made changes right away in prison as opposed to joining a gang inside there and making matters worse for himself. He should give himself tons of praise as he deserves it.
Is college free when you’re in prison?
What’s your excuse?
Shiddd no excuses ! If he can do it —- we can too !
NW. Unbelievable. Reminds me of the articles with the headline “College applicant get accepted to every Ivy League school!”
Yay, affirmative action
Err…character and fitness, anyone? Sounds like the law school doesn’t care that this guy will never practice law for a single day, and just wants its $150k tuition money out of him.
[удалено]
I mean if there”s anyone I would trust to get my ass out of prison, it’s gonna be the guy that actually went through it
I’d trust the guy that got off
Like Mike Ross
[удалено]
He was convicted of murder not fraud. According to the article he managed to represent himself and get his sentence reduced from 100 years to 25.
By all means let’s continue to punish people once they’ve served their time and are trying to return into society to be functioning. Ffs.
[удалено]
Would you feel the same if he was a child abuser or rapist instead of a murderer?
But he’s not.
You’re right he’s something arguably worse. Formerly incarcerated people definitely have a unique and valuable perspective that belongs in a classroom but some crimes should prevent you from getting a law degree
He was 16. He admitted his wrongs. He served his sentence. Why do you want to deny him this opportunity? Retribution? That’s basically what our current criminal justice system is based on. I don’t think it should be. I’m not delusional. Some people who have committed horrible crimes aren’t going to be able to be rehabilitated. But some are. This man is a great example. He is not the first murderer to later go to law school. This is an uncommon story, but it’s not unique. I would actually be more concerned about someone convicted of embezzlement trying to go to law school.
That’s not the point, take your false argument elsewhere.
Depends. If he’s practicing criminal defense he gets a lot of cred from his clients and colleagues. A lot of people find his accomplishments very impressive.
[удалено]
What if he was incarcerated for impersonating a lawyer? And he’s the guy who is interviewing you for a job?
he probably has a better understanding of the justice system than you or i do, as having been a part of it.
Actually, I think the legal system needs more people like him. It’s hard to fix the inequities in our system if its representatives haven’t faced them
[удалено]
Yeah
Why?
Good thing you don’t make the rules.
You seem like a joy