Pope Francis has arrived in the United States, having said that he will meet with, not just the powerful, but the "marginalized," including prison inmates.
One might ask a couple of questions here. One would be how US inmates got where they are. And the answer would be by committing crime,
usually violent crime. Another might be whether the Pope plans on meeting with the inmates' victims, and the answer is "no" (at least "no" so far as has been announced). Victims, I guess, can do without Papal grace.
But the question I want to ask is aptly discussed in today's Washington Post
editorial. It asks why the Pope bypassed prisoners in Cuba -- and instead had a cordial, smiling meeting with the tyrants who put them there in order to muzzle dissent, rather than because they committed any crime, as that word is understood in the United States and the rest of the Free World.
Thus, the Post notes:
How...to explain Pope Francis's behavior in Cuba? The pope is spending four days in a country whose Communist dictatorship has remained unrelenting in its repression of free speech, political dissent and other human rights despite a warming of relations with the Vatican and the United States. Yet by the end of his third day, the pope had said or done absolutely nothing that might discomfit his official hosts.
Pope Francis met with 89-year-old Fidel Castro, who holds no office in Cuba, but not with any members of the dissident community -- in or outside of prison. According to the Web site 14ymedio.com, two opposition activists were invited to greet the pope at Havana's cathedral Sunday but were arrested on the way. Dozens of other dissidents were detained when they attempted to attend an open air Mass.
"One might ask a couple of questions here. One would be how US inmates got where they are. And the answer would be by committing crime, usually violent crime."
53% of them committed violent crimes, which means the other 47% did not.
A certain naivete is displayed in the above comment. Look closer at the 47% who purportedly did not commit violent crimes and one will find a couple of things:
In many cases the real offense behavior involved an element of violence or weapon possession which was reduced thru the ubiquitous plea bargain process;
Violence or weapon possession can be found in prior offenses of the inmate.
Unfortunately, the Hollywood image of the choir boy inmate wronged by the "system" dies hard.
Where, exactly, do you see how many of the 47% received plea bargains to avoid being charged with violent crimes? I do not see that information. "Trust me - a bunch of them did" is not the same as data/evidence.
Also, prior offenses are prior offenses. If someone commits a violent crime, serves time for it and is released, the case is closed on that offense. If he subsequently commits theft and goes to prison for it, it seems to me he's serving time for theft, not for the violent crime he committed earlier.
And possession of a weapon is not inherently a violent offense, either, as any NRA member will tell you.
Any judge worth his salt considers the total offense behavior of the offender-what he actually did rather than what he pled guilty to (sentencing, of course, must take place within the parameters of the reduced crime.)
Any paroling authority considers an offender's entire criminal history and the risk that history poses to the public.
And yes, possession of a weapon in conjunction with a drug offense or other felony is considered the profile of a violent offender.
Packin' heat while dealin' smack. What could go wrong?