His rise in the polls isn’t the only ink GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is receiving these days. Murray Waas at The Huffington Post has obtained docs illuminating the former Arkansas governor’s role in release of a serial rapist, Wayne Dumond.
While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee’s intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond’s behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.Even worse, Baptist minister Huckabee and his minions — lied about receiving any letters from the rape victims of Dumond.“There’s nothing any of us could ever do,” Huckabee said Sunday on CNN when asked to reflect on the horrific outcome caused by the prisoner’s release. “None of us could’ve predicted what [Dumond] could’ve done when he got out.”
But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.
In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond’s victims warned: “I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time.” Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee’s urging, records show that Huckabee’s office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas’ parole board.
Huckabee kept these and other documents secret because they were politically damaging, according to a former aide who worked for him in Arkansas. The aide has made the records available to the Huffington Post, deeply troubled by Huckabee’s repeated claims that he had no reason to believe Dumond would commit other violent crimes upon his release from prison. The aide also believes that Huckabee, for political reasons, has deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of Dumond’s other sexual assaults.In fact, since Huckabee is so public about his faith and courts the bible-beating vote, his treatment of these victims is particularly damaging. Read on after the jump.“There were no letters sent to the governor’s office from any rape victims,” Huckabee campaign spokesperson Alice Stewart said on Tuesday when contacted by the Huffington Post.
Subsequently, however, the campaign provided a former senior aide of Huckabee’s who did remember reading at least one of the letters.
What the public never knew, however, was that other women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond had privately written Huckabee about their anguish. Their very private attempts at changing Huckabee’s mind, they later told the Huffington Post, were based on concerns that speaking out publicly would have been too painful and traumatizing.
One such letter was from the daughter of a Dumond rape victim:
When you ran for office, one of the reasons I voted for you was the fact you are/were a Baptist preacher. I come from a very strong Baptist background… [O]ne of my grandfathers is also a preacher. I have always been a faithful church member where I am the choir director, yet this is one event that is not so easily forgiven.
The woman provided Huckabee with her personal phone number in hopes that he or at least someone on his staff would call. She says that she never heard back.Go read the rest of the piece; it makes your stomach turn.I have prayed about these feelings, but once someone hurts your mother, or daughter the way this man hurt my mother I believe that you would feel the same…
Please understand that this letter is coming from my heart…. I would love to have the chance to talk to you about this matter as a daughter of a surviving rape victim.
Here are links to the confidential files Huff Post obtained:
* Letter From Rape Victim, Sept. 1996
* Letter From Rape Victim’s Daughter, Sept. 1996
* Letter From Rape Victim, Sept. 1999
UPDATE: It gets even worse; how will Chuck Norris get him out of this mess? Huckabee wrote a joyous letter to Dumond about his release — “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.” Dumond then went out and raped and murdered two women. (H/t Americablog.
83 Responses to “Huck’s little rapist/murderer problem”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Oh Lord.
My heart goes out to the victims and the victim’s family.
I wonder if Huckabee will get as much grief about Dumond as Dukakis got about Willie Horton. He should get a lot more, since Dukakis never personally pushed for Horton’s furlough. However, since Horton was A Big Scary Black Dude, and Dumond doesn’t seem to be, Huck’s followers will shrug it off with “Those sluts got what they deserved! Sleeping in their own bedrooms at night! The hussies!”
Ughhhh my stomach just lurched.
Huck’s fratty son once hanged a dog at summer camp.
Conservatives are dog-haters!
It would only really matter if conservatives cared about rape. Cause most of us here being disgusted wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
I saw the victim’s mother on the CBS Early Show today.
I really hoped that ALL of the Democratic candidates read this.
Rowmyboat, isn’t it disturbing that the only activity conservatives don’t classify as “sexually immoral” is the non-consentual type?
This isn’t about Huck. It’s about the right wing media frenzy against Clinton. Huck will be gone from the national scene after the elections, but the smear machine will still be with us. The people who pushed for Dumond’s release are still part of the right wing noise machine. This needs to be hung around their necks. The country needs to be constantly reminded that these hysterical liars get people killed, and it’s not just scary brown foreigners, either.
Sickening and infuriating. If that pig can sleep the night through, he has no conscience, no empathy and no morality.
Read the end of the Byron York article on National Review. Huckabee blames it on……(drumroll)
Teh Clenis! The source of all the world’s evil.
“Huckabee spread the blame around, not only to Tucker, who originally commuted Dumond’s sentence, but to Bill Clinton as well. “Tucker could not have done that without Clinton’s full knowledge and approval,” Huckabee said.”
I’m pretty sure that the serpent who tempted Eve with the apple was really just Bill Clinton’s wang in disguise.
I heard that one of the victims was a relative of Bill Clinton. Is that true?
“… he has no conscience, no empathy and no morality.”
He’s a Baptists preacher. It kind of goes with the territory.
“I heard that one of the victims was a relative of Bill Clinton.”
Yes. Apparently one of the victims was Clinton’s distant cousin.
___
“isn’t it disturbing that the only activity conservatives don’t classify as “sexually immoral” is the non-consentual type? ”
They consider it “sexually immoral” to rape a Christian virgin (i.e. the only women allowed to have abortions after rape and not be morally unclean for it). The rest of us are just dirty sluts who ask for it.
One of Dumond’s rape victims was in fact a distant cousin of Bill Clinton. The evil Clinton recused himself because it was his cousin. To me the worst part of the Huckabee involvement is that he did it to get back at Bill Clinton. He used the rape of a 17 year girl to hurt a political adversary. Is this what christian politicians do?
The Clinton thing is the central factor of the story. Huckabee bowed to political pressure from the lunatic fringe of the republican party who said Clinton had Drummond framed.
Pam,
I’m so glad you posted this. I read Waas’ expose last night.
I hope the MSM picks up the story, but I seriously doubt it will.
‘Cuz it’s all about Teh Clenis. And his cousin.
Bleah.
Unfortunately, Huck is a Man of God. In Fundie culture, this is an absolute get-out-of-jail-free card. All he has to do is keep Preaching the Faith and the Fundies will forgive anything at all. Anything.
In the moral swamp that is Fundie culture, this is one of the worst chunks.
Yes. That’s why Huck went so far to free the rapist.
Huck is, imo, guilty as an accessory and should be put in prison. It’s no different than if he had sprung the rapist out of jail violently. He misused his power for a purely political purpose and did, and still does not, give a damn about his victims. We’ve shot people for less in this country.
If Huckabee is the nominee, turn Wayne Dumond into his Willie Horton.
Huckabee working to get the guy released isn’t particularly objectionable. Like it or no, politicians play this kind of game all the time; doesn’t matter who you like, I assure you that your candidate has or will done something along these lines. It’s not a big deal, whether it’s Huckabee and this fellow or Bubba and his Puerto Rican terrorist buddies.
What IS a big deal is how Huckabee is lying about the information he had to hand. Some of Dumond’s original victims wrote to Huckabee during the parole process, begging him not to release Dumond because they were convinced he would offend again. And Huckabee could, reasonably, have decided to disregard those letters. But instead he’s pretending they never happened, and has lied about that.
And that is huge, and disqualifies him from the Presidency IMHO.
You are right. And I’m betting that he sleeps just fine.
Why wait and why not hang it on not just Huckabee but the whole GOP?That’s the difference between the GOP and the Democrats. The GOP will hang things on the Dems that the Dems had nothing to do with. The Dems refuse to hang things on the GOP that the GOP actually did.
Jesus forgives him. That makes anything he does or is responsible for a-ok!
Yeah, that automatically came to mind when I read the first few lines. But since I was only 11 at the time of that election, I didn’t read about it until many years later. So I must ask: did Dukakis receive as many warnings about Horton as Huckabee received about Dumond? If not, it would be sickening if Huckabee got off easier than Dukakis, I agree.
Him and Romney, right?
Those who will vote for him will probably shrug their shoulders and say “people make mistakes sometimes.” They’ve made up their minds already and it’ll likely take more than this to get them to reconsider.
The fact that the guy was castrated automatically makes me sick, but nevertheless there is the very pertinent question of whether or not he is a threat to society and can be trusted to run around free. Put the man in protective custody if you’re worried about him, but don’t let him out, and definitely don’t let him out without supervision.
As it turned out, the women who wrote to him were right. He did sexually assault another woman after his release.
Oh for god’s sake…even if that’s true, it doesn’t mean you’re blameless, Mike, not by a longshot. The decent thing to do would be to just accept responsibility for your part in it, apologize (which is the very least you can do), and do not try to shift any part of the blame onto somebody else.
“I heard that one of the victims was a relative of Bill Clinton.”
Yes. Apparently one of the victims was Clinton’s distant cousin.
Which is why Clinton recused himself from the case entirely and was careful not to intervene one way or the other. And that makes Huckabee’s claims that the Clenis made him do it even more bogus than they appear at first glance.
And, yes, Dumond was castrated, though there’s some dispute over whether it was done at the behest of the local sheriff (the one who later kept Dumond’s severed testicles in a jar on his desk — Southern gothic lives!) or whether Dumond did it himself while he was drunk, a not uncommon action by sex offenders, especially those who feel they can’t control themselves.
You know when I said something about this when you posted his Chuck and Huck video you all ignored it.
I’m glad it’s finally getting some attention.
Better late than never, clytemnestra.
Mnemosyne, there is that possibility, but when somebody is the victim of violence I don’t like to assume that they’re lying about what happened. When Pam posted here about Andrew Mayer getting tasered I was regularly listening to Stephanie Miller and was eager to find out what they’d have to say about it; I was sickened when they made fun of it because of the way he yelled “Don’t tase me, bro!” and then dismissed him as a performance artist who was trying to make a scene and pretending to be in more pain than he was to get attention. Sorry to get OT; I know I haven’t been good about that, and I’m trying to cut down. It’s just that I thought they were wrong to say that Mayer was asking for it and didn’t really suffer all that much, and if anybody is saying that they’re certain Dumond castrated himself and is lying I think that’s wrong as well.
The visuals involved here are certainly playing a part in my emotional reaction, I acknowledge that.
Incorrect.
Partially correct.
A fact that undermines your first assertion. I simply cannot see how the evidence at Huck’s fingertips allowed him to come to a legitimate conclusion that the rapist was innocent. Since it is impossible for a moral adult to come to such a conclusion, and because Huck had a selfish interest in seeing the rapist free to rape again, then the only rational conclusion is that Huck misused the power of his office in order to facilitate a criminal’s criminal acts.
Though, of course, we agree that he is easily disqualified from the Presidency. I simply cannot see how he’s qualified as a law-abiding citizen.
Wanna nip this in the bud: my preceding statements should not be taken as a “what about the menz” plea, and weren’t intended to be, particularly given what this man did both before and after the…removal. The visual is not nice for somebody with the same equipment to think about, but that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring what he did.
No matter what he went through it should not have played a part in determining whether or not to release him. It’s not a question of whether or not he suffered enough for his crimes, it’s a question of whether or not he would offend again, and there was plenty of danger that he would.
Mnemosyne, there is that possibility, but when somebody is the victim of violence I don’t like to assume that they’re lying about what happened.
In case it wasn’t clear: even if Dumond did do it himself (and there is some evidence of that, like the fact that there was no forced entry or sign that anyone else had been in the house, and that Dumond’s story changed several times), that in no way minimizes what happened.
In fact, to me, if he did self-castrate, that’s in some ways worse than if someone did it to him, because it means that he desperately needed major mental health assistance (in a locked facility) and he never got it, and other people ended up suffering because we (as a society) couldn’t get Dumond the assistance he needed.
(No, I’m not being a rape apologist. But if the guy self-castrates in a drunken frenzy, it’s a little more complicated than “rapist bad!”)
This comes to show that there is no low in the slut-shaming the far right does. And now, upon listening to the cbs show this morning, we all know that Huckabee is a Talibaptist.
Anyone in government should know that burglars, rapists, gangbangers (members of a gang), and other people convicted of violent crimes are at a very high risk of re-offending. That is why you don’t pardon people like Dumond. Huck is a disgrace and a blatant misogynist to boot.
Rob,
I agree . . . I was getting very disappointed that this wasn’t getting more play weeks ago … now it’s exploding all over my feeds and I’m quite happy to see it … and yet NH NEA endorses both Clinton and Huckabee
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_25
I just wish it had broken on pandagon
clytemnestra– are you talking about the huckabee/dumond/parole story in general or the fact that he was lying about the letters he received? i know the first place i heard about huckabee’s “willie horton problem” was here on pandagon, a couple of weeks ago — it might have been amanda who wrote about it — but nothing til now about the letters that contradicted his “no one could have known”.
I simply cannot see how the evidence at Huck’s fingertips allowed him to come to a legitimate conclusion that the rapist was innocent.
He didn’t come to that conclusion. He came to the conclusion that Dumond had been sufficiently punished, and that his lengthy prison sentence should come to an end.
Interestingly, the FoxNews story doesn’t mention the Clinton link..
(For anyone not aware, Dumond was sentenced to life in prison for his rape of Ashley Stevens, later modified to 40 years. He had served twelve years of the sentence before being paroled.)
“He came to the conclusion that Dumond had been sufficiently punished, and that his lengthy prison sentence should come to an end. ”
Because why shouldn’t a man be free to attack other women? I mean, how dare anyone try to deny a man his right to rape and murder women?
That conclusion is equally absurd, given the recidivism rates of sex offenders. He had to know he would rape again. If he was delusional enough to believe the rapist hadn’t raped in the first place — which is actually what I think he convinced himself of — his poor judgement in the matter was still the result of a selfish interest. Huck should be in prison.
Three possibilities come to mind.
1. Huckabee knew the risks and just didn’t care.
2. Huckabee thought that the guy was rehabilitated (despite all evidence to the contrary, including those letters as well as the fact that AFAIK prison time does nothing to lessen a serial rapist’s compulsion to rape).
3. Huckabee thought that given his castration, the guy couldn’t rape another person even if he wanted to (despite the fact that there are a wide array of inanimate objects out there that he could use to rape a woman if that was what was driving him to do it in the first place…and he could always assault women in other ways as an outlet for his hatred).
In the US, the average time served for rape is a little over five years according to the DOJ. Dumond served twelve.
We can surely make a case that sentences for rape are too lenient/short; you won’t find me arguing to the contrary. I don’t think we can make a case that everyone who believes that most crimes deserve less than eternal punishment (about 95% of us, I’d guess if I had to) thinks that men have a right to rape and murder.
I think your framing of the issue is unproductive, and certainly not one that lends itself to anything other than a profoundly conservative, law-and-order kind of legal system. Which is tempting, sometimes, late at night thinking about the things that could happen to my kids or grandkids because some bad person wasn’t locked away forever - but which I don’t think is the best way for our society to go, when daylight brings a little more perspective.
Back to the original point, Huckabee didn’t think that Dumond was innocent, he thought that a life sentence plus vigilante castration was too much. I’d like rape to be more seriously punished than it is, but I also think that a life sentence is too much. That’s why it isn’t unreasonable for Huckabee (or any other state governor) to work to get a sentence like this one fixed. In this case, Huckabee even relented on his plan to commute the sentence in favor of putting Dumond through the parole system, where at least in theory they could keep an eye on him. That didn’t work out; it’s horrible that it didn’t. I suspect that if I’m the governor, I’m not going to be interested in commuting many violent criminal sentences (vote for me!) because the possibility of a horrible outcome is too high, and the horribleness of erring in the other direction isn’t that bad, and happens to a bad person. (The injustice of Dumond being in jail for life is a lot less than the injustice of two women getting raped and murdered because he was released.)
But I think the real problem with Huckabee on this is that he’s lying about what he did in the process, not that he participated in the process. He could have said “yes, those women Dumond victimized previously sent me letters, but I decided that justice required…” Instead he’s trying to BS us that he had no clue. I can accept someone who makes a mistake; I have a harder time accepting someone who makes a mistake and then lies to try to cover it.
Correction–possibility #3 should read “…objects out there that he could use to rape a woman if hatred of women was what was driving him to do it…”
Sorry, that “your framing” was directed at Betty Boondoggle. Other people posted while I was responding to her.
No One, your metric leads us to a world where it is impossible for any political figure to exert authority. Maybe that’d be good (anarchy in the UK! woot!) but I kind of think maybe not. If advocating for the release of people whose crimes have a high recidivism rate is criminal, then about half of the liberals I’ve ever met are criminals. And I’m pretty sure that my Aunt May isn’t a crook just because she thinks black people are getting the shaft when it comes to drug-related prison sentences.
Rob, you’re leaving out option four: Huckabee thought that twelve years was enough for a rape conviction.
Oh man I’m on a roll today. Everything above below the phrase “I don’t think we can make a case that everyone who believes that most crimes deserve less than eternal punishment (about 95% of us, I’d guess if I had to) thinks that men have a right to rape and murder” should not be blockquoted because it’s my response. I think I’ll just take a break now.
(Also, thanks for clearing that up, Mnemosyne)
Dumond had already taken part in a murder during the string of rapes he committed: he got a deal to roll over on his partners. He then went on to rape and murder two other women.
I am not a retributist; I value neither torture nor the long, slow, pathetic torture of imprisonment. If I sought vengeance for a serious crime, I would simply kill the offender and be done with it. Barring the lust for vengeance, the only issue is rehabilitating the offender.
I am not impressed with length of sentencing; whether or not the rapist had served a long period of time means little to me. This is especially true since, even if time in prison had some beneficial effect, 12 years hardly seems that long for brutal rapes. (The average of 5 seems short, imo.)
That is what I thought of your view. I am concerned with recidivism. You are concerned about prison time. Those are incompatible concerns. Concern for prison time flows very well with a law-and-order mentality: make the offender pay. Prison is bad, so the longer the prison sentence, the longer the payment. As I said, prison is pathetic vengeance, and I’m not concerned about vengeance in the first place because it is not a moral priority.
A superior moral goal to the one you described would be to concentrate on preventing further crime. If you know, with grim certainty, that the offender will commit a crime again, then you do not take positive action to let him out — simple as that.
Your explanation consistently fails to recognize Huck’s selfish interest in this case. Your narrative simply cannot be true without mentioning the Clinton element.
Well, of course. Huck’s motives were unjust; his current behavior is added evidence of the misuse of his power. If a buddy of yours decides to hold up a convenience store and several people get shot in an unplanned shootout, you could say “That didn’t work out; it’s horrible that it didn’t.” Huck began with a bad motive that cannot be discounted by the mere possibility something else was on his mind. Even if there were, it wouldn’t justify his actions.
A republican govenor would be even less interested in commuting violent criminals. Thus, when he chooses to do so, it seems obvious that the natural reason should be a political one, not an ethical one. Surely there would be a slew of other convicts that Huck would have been interested in helping if it was a matter of duty to release Dumond? No, in fact, Dumond was a lonely case in Huck’s career because that rapist presented Huck with a political opportunity, not an ethical problem.
Completely untrue. By your logic, we could never prosecute embezzlement because we must assume, despite a preponderance of the evidence, that the politician involed was on the up and up. Your view — one where the power of a politician cannot be checked — would lead to an immovable aristocracy in a powerful government and rank anarchy with a weak government. By the way, your viewpoint is common amongst our elites — the former describes the actual state of the U.S.
a) Huck never advocated that.
b) I never advocated against it.
So you are arguing with yourself.
Huck argued for the release of one person — one, not a class — for selfish reasons.
Huck only asked in the first place because there was a selfish political goal. The ethical discussion itself was merely a means to an ends for him.
Look, I agree about the prison system and what it’s for. But we (and Huckabee) aren’t in the world where your ideas are in play; we’re in the world where prison time is the punishment, and rehabilitation is something that we hope happens, not something that we know how to make happen.
5 years is too little if we’re talking about somebody who is going to do this over and over. I wouldn’t like to see somebody in prison for life, but I don’t want them released if they are going to do it again.
Well, of course. Does anyone seriously think that if we went back in time, convinced the world we were time travelers, showed Huckabee the news reports about what would happen if Dumond get out, that he would have let him out? No.
I agree about the political motivation for his pressure on the parole board; that’s what I meant when I talked about most all politicians doing the same kind of thing. But, so what? NOBODY uses the power of the pardon/commutation to bring about a more ethical justice system; it’s silly to condemn Huckabee, like it would be silly to go after (say) Hillary Clinton for taking money from political interest groups. Yeah, she does, and maybe the phenomenon is in itself objectionable, but there’s nothing particularly Hillary about it.
I stand corrected on one thing - it does seem that he expressed doubt that Dumond was guilty at all, not just that his sentence was too harsh. So there’s another ding against him in my book, since it was pretty obvious that Dumond was guilty.
Ginmar, I have not seen anything that supports what you have written. Dumond’s sentence was for life plus twenty years; what kind of deal does someone make to get pretty much the worst conceivable non-DP sentence? From his subsequent behavior I have no doubt whatsoever that Dumond could easily have been involved in serial rapes and/or murders, but I haven’t seen anything other than your comment that suggests he actually was. Do you have any information or sources I could look at on that? Thank you.
QT: You have left out the obvious fifth option, that he bowed to political pressure from his own party’s base.
You seem to have missed an extremely relevant point in your analysis of Huckabee’s motivation and reasoning. His political base was putting intense pressure on him for Dumond’s release. They were wrongly convinced that Dumond was innocent on the grounds that the victim was a distant cousin of Clinton.
His decision had nothing to do with misplaced compassion, a misunderstanding of recidivism for sex offenders, or any misguided sense of justice; it was a political decision, full stop. That political decision directly resulted in the deaths of two women.
Can you point to any other prisoners whose sentences he considered excessive who didn’t have the loud support of the spittle-spraying Clinton haters demanding Dumond’s release? Has he ever sought to have any other rapists released on the grounds that their sentences were excessive? Or even harmless pot-smokers? No.
So, with all due respect, please cut the crap. You’re attempting to remove his decision from the political context in which it was made; that’s dishonest as hell, and I don’t see anyone here falling for it. Especially not if you’re going to criticize how anyone else is “framing” this.
The question should always be “what will this person do if he’s released? What’s the most likely scenario?” Not “have they been sufficiently punished?”
The problem is that we really can’t answer the first two questions with anything approaching reliability, let alone rigor. Whereas the second question is just an opinion, and we can each answer it decisively and sum the total to see what society thinks.
…What I do want the justice system to do is keep people safe, to objectively analyze whether somebody is a threat and to ensure that they are cease being a threat if so.
That would be a fantastic justice system.
Let me know when you work out how to do it. Because we don’t know how to right now.
RobW, I quite agree that the pressure was politically motivated.
And I agree that the political decision resulted in the deaths of people.
Where we disagree is that apparently you imagine the long, long history of commutations and pardons in this country is one of selfless politicos nobly questing for truth and correcting the occasional errors of a justice system, a beautiful and pure tradition sullied by Huckabee trampling in with his jackbooted conservathugs, cutting down the tree of justice and replacing it with the iron fence of fascism.
Not so much. It was a pretty dirty system to begin with. Huck came in and crapped where a lot of other people have previously crapped - it’s a “crap here” zone, as it happens - and as has happened many times before, that crap ended up landing on actual human beings who suffered for it.
Nice way of trying to say Huckabee’s just another pol, and they all let rapists out of jail. It doesn’t work.
I don’t know Arkansas politics, but I strongly suspect they’re similar in this regard to Texas. And here, commutations and pardons for convicted rapists/ murderers are about as rare as snow on Labor Day.
“Nice way of trying to say Huckabee’s just another pol, and they all let rapists out of jail. It doesn’t work.”
He’s doing that because the old “But What About Clinton?!?” thing is not quite as powerful as it used to be. ‘Course the Huckster is still trying it anyway…
And here, commutations and pardons for convicted rapists/ murderers are about as rare as snow on Labor Day.
Since I agree with the rough moral equivalence of these crimes, I’ll accept the formulation.
They’re pretty rare in general, I think. Looking at this case in hindsight (I confess to having been pretty out of touch with the news during the years when all this was going on, so this is all news to me) and without really loving the Clintons or hating them, and without having any particular opinion of Huckabee, it seems obvious that the political pressure is what compelled Dumond’s parole, not any motivation for justice for the poor innocent falsely-accused man. There seems to be consensus on that point.
A question seems to have emerged from that consensus, however, one that I’ll open up for ridicule or adoration:
Does issuing a pardon of a “rapist or murderer” from base political motives mean that a Presidential candidate is unacceptable?
Lest I be thought guilty of partisan motives, I honestly don’t know what that question would mean for any of the candidates (and I don’t really have a pick yet, either). The only other high-profile case I know of is Hillary’s pardon of the Puerto Rican terrorists / freedom fighters (take your pick), and I don’t know enough about that case to have an informed opinion. So this question might hurt or hinder either party’s roster.
Be interesting to find out, though.
Nice way of trying to say Huckabee’s just another pol, and they all let rapists out of jail. It doesn’t work.
I’m sorry but I don’t really know how to answer you. I agree that letting rapists out of jail is as a general principle a terrible idea, and specifically that letting this guy out was a terrible idea.
I don’t know whether Huckabee is just another pol or not, honestly. How many politicians who have held executive office have ever been involved in letting rapists out? Or any other categories of crimes, for that matter?
I only suspect that the political calculation and maneuvering he showed in this episode is not particularly unusual among national politicians. I know, however, that his lying about (refusing/minimizing) the testimony of the first victims and their families is morally unacceptable to me on a gut level, and so I think he can just pee off a pier as far as getting my vote.
Hopefully we can find some common ground on those points, at least.
RobW, I quite agree that the pressure was politically motivated.
And I agree that the political decision resulted in the deaths of people.
Good to see we agree on that. I’d posted without having seen your comment immediately prior to mine.
Where we disagree is that apparently you imagine the long, long history of commutations and pardons in this country is one of selfless politicos nobly questing for truth and correcting the occasional errors of a justice system, a beautiful and pure tradition sullied by Huckabee trampling in with his jackbooted conservathugs, cutting down the tree of justice and replacing it with the iron fence of fascism.
That’s a strawman, though I confess it’s an awfully pretty one. I never said nor implied anything of the sort. In fact, it was you who started down the path of analyzing Huckabee’s motives independently of the political context before backing off from that path. But hey, if you’re going to put words in my mouth, thanks for making them so pretty.
RobW -
You are correct, I did open the topic. I stand corrected.
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
The above link is to a very informative article about this case. Dumond had a long criminal history and was indeed involved in the beating death of a man as well as arrested on sexual molestation charges. He also confessed to at least one additional rape, but later took back his confession and the woman in question did not press charges out of fear for her life.
This monster should never have been released from jail. I only wish there were a Hell so that I’d have the satisfaction of knowing he was roasting there.
Thanks, QT. I’m afraid I’m not done correcting, though. No offense.
The only other high-profile case I know of is Hillary’s pardon of the Puerto Rican terrorists / freedom fighters (take your pick), and I don’t know enough about that case to have an informed opinion. So this question might hurt or hinder either party’s roster.
Hillary Clinton was the First Lady. She pardoned nobody. That was her husband.
Be interesting to find out, though.
Yes, it would be. If only there were some way of doing so…
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/05/senate.2000/hillary.puerto.rico/
Hmm… It turns out that Hillary actually opposed Bill’s clemency for those guys while she was running for the Senate.
There’s some other interesting tidbits in the article that seem relevant to this discussion, particularly:
Each of the prisoners has served more than 19 years, longer than the amount of time usually served for the crimes they were convicted of committing, said White House officials.
None of the prisoners was found guilty of murder, bombing or hurting a person.
Their crimes include armed robbery and illegal weapons possession. Most of the inmates did not have lawyers and refused to defend themselves in court because they did not recognize the authority of the US government.
(snip)
But the prisoners have indeed renounced violence, though their attorney, said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois. He noted that 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners have joined the effort, as have Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico.
“Why would all these leaders…be for people who want to continue violence,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Gutierrez said that, had the prisoners defended themselves, they would likely have received concurrent instead of consecutive sentences, and would have been released by now.
It would be really ironic (not to mention dishonest) if Huckabee is making the same argument about Dumond.
And more irony: Hillary’s position, IMO, was wrong. The commutation of their sentences was just; her opposition to it was motivated by political expediency. She’d previously supported it, but changed her mind based on the fact that it took 3 weeks for the prisoners to react to the offer, notwithstanding that, duh, they were in prison.
That decision put her on the same side as Guiliani and Orrin Hatch. Early triangulation on her part. Ugh.
Great. Now this thread is turning into a discussion of the Clintons… We were talking about Huckabee, right?
I blame society.
Two points
(1) Dumond didn’t just commit rape. He raped a woman while her 3 year old child lay next to her in bed AND he threatened to kill the child to keep his victim quiet. This isn’t some case where a patriarchy-blinded judge could find some sort of he-said/she-said wiggle room. It was brutal violent rape involving a direct threat of murdering both the victim and her child. If there was ever a case for throwing the book at a man, this is it. Not only was he found guilty of rape in a fair trial before a jury of his peers, but he was also an admitted accomplice in a brutal murder. The parole board had not just this information, but also the testimony of multiple credible witnesses to his prior unpunished crimes. Commutation under these circumstances is completely unreasonable.
(2) This isn’t about Huckabee. A politician who makes a bad decision in order to mollify his base is completely unremarkable. The issue is that there were people pressuring Huckabee to make this pardon. Those people are still out there, and they will continue to spew their bile long after Huck is gone. They are the ‘transmitters’ Dave Neiwert talks about. They are the noise machine that the next Democratic president will have to deal with. That WE will have to deal with if we want to take America back from the cryptofascists.
Your suspicious are incorrect. This was a unique situation.
This rapist was released to spite the Clintons. That’s already been pointed out.
We probably agree up and down that the justice system sucks — but you’re the one who brought the justice system up. It’s a red herring. You’ve been distracted. This has nothing to do with the justice sysem. This has everything to do with misuse of power.
Let me go a step further here. Based on what we know, it is at least plausable, I think more probable than not, that Huck decided that the rapist was innocent because it allowed him to release the rapist in good conscience. That is a betrayal of his oath of office and grounds for impeachment, possibly prosecution.
This is a unique event. Politics surrounds pardonings, true, but freeing a criminal to spite another pol just is not done. Now, freeing a thug to help yourself is done all the time (cf. Libby, Scooter) and is also grounds for impeachment. . .
. . . but we know implementation is the problem there. . .
This is simple. What Huck did, in office, was immoral and an illegal use of power, and women were raped and killed as a result, and he still doesn’t give a shit.
I was without my headphones on the ride home today, so I had to listen to whatever my dad had on the radio. What do you know, it was the conservative noise machine. I got to listen to Hannity whine about how the Democrats always had this information and just now decided to release it to smear Huckabee. No mention of misuse of power or the Clinton connection. Just another excuse to blame the Democrats.
What’s even more fun is Huck’s top aide’s story, who says that Huck not only lied, he tried to cover it up too, so Huck’s probably in violation of Arkansas state law.
“I don’t think we can make a case that everyone who believes that most crimes deserve less than eternal punishment (about 95% of us, I’d guess if I had to) thinks that men have a right to rape and murder.”
Are you seriously trying to make the case that many people agree with you that rapists should be let out of prision because they all think - according to you and your magical out-of-your-ass statistic - eternal punishment isn’t warranted?
You must be male.
Thank goddess this came out!
All we would have needed was even the barest potential of a Nehemiah Scudder in the oval office!
I got to listen to Hannity whine about how the Democrats always had this information and just now decided to release it to smear Huckabee.
Yes, because Willie Horton committed his crimes on furlough during Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign, and Lee Atwater just happened to find out about it.
Consistency would be nice from the ‘wingers, but I know we’ll never get it.
Are you seriously trying to make the case that many people agree with you that rapists should be let out of prision because they all think - according to you and your magical out-of-your-ass statistic - eternal punishment isn’t warranted? You must be male.
Yes, I am male. I’m also pretty sure I’m right, although these two facts have no connection. Nearly everyone thinks that most criminal sentences (including those for rape) should come to an end at some point. In the current climate of hostility to criminals, do you really think that we would have finite sentences if that weren’t the case?
However, it’s perfectly possible that I am wrong, or that I’m wrong about this group of people here. Is there a consensus or group sentiment in this group of people that rapists and/or other criminals should be locked up for life? Or is there a consensus/group sentiment here that prison sentences should have a certain term and then expire?
Clytemnestra, Amanda did post about this a little over a month ago. (Sorry if this has already been pointed out; I haven’t read all of the comments.)
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/31/6259/#more-6259
QT, you keep trying to change the subject from the specific case we’re discussing to a general discussion of crime. Stop that. You’re not fooling anybody. We’re discussing Mike Huckabee and Wayne Dumond. Knock it off with the subject changing. It’s obvious and it’s getting annoying—at least about the first five times you tried it.
“Nearly everyone thinks that most criminal sentences (including those for rape) should come to an end at some point.”
Another version of the out-of-your-ass statistic doesn’t make it true.
This man was a repeated rapist and murderer BEFORE he went to jail. So, what sane, reasonable or logical person would think he deserved to get out of jail at all, forget a shortened sentence?
To you, putting a serial rapist and murderer in jail until he croaks may be a grave injustice. That’s your privilege as a man - to be completely unconcerned with the consequences of your high ideals. I happen to think that, when one commits a crime - such as rape and/or murder - one loses the right to free. Lock ‘em up and forget to remember where you left the key.
Just to make it clear to QT:
The problem is not just that Huckabee released a guy who didn’t deserve it. That’s a political decision, and it does happen all the time.
The problem is that Huckabee did it because he bought into the whacko Clinton conspiracy theory that that said Dumond was being persecuted because he’d attacked a distant relative of Clinton’s. It demonstrates a frightening lack of common sense, an inability to reason, and a susceptibility to whacko conspiracy theories that’s scary in a chief executive. Don’t forget, our current situation in Iraq is partly due to the fact that Dick Cheney bought into whacko nutjob Laurie Mylroie’s theory that Saddam Hussein was behind the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh was just the front man.
shades of Willie Horton, anyone?
This isn’t some case where a patriarchy-blinded judge could find some sort of he-said/she-said wiggle room. It was brutal violent rape involving a direct threat of murdering both the victim and her child. If there was ever a case for throwing the book at a man, this is it.
That was actually an earlier rape, for which Dumond was never prosecuted.
I happen to think that, when one commits a crime - such as rape and/or murder - one loses the right to free. Lock ‘em up and forget to remember where you left the key.
Yup - let’s give rape exactly the same sentence as rape/murder.
Of course, if you include murder there’s one less witness…
Good thinking, Einstein.
“The problem is that Huckabee did it because he bought into the whacko Clinton conspiracy theory that that said Dumond was being persecuted because he’d attacked a distant relative of Clinton’s.”
…which was then compounded by his inability to admit he was swayed by people with a political agenda. Or even admit he interfered in the parole board’s decistion. And his inability to admit it was a mistake to begin with…
But at least he’s Republican - that makes anything he does (or doesn’t do) okay…
Which is more problematic?
That Huckabee made a political decision based on some whacked-out conspiracy theory?
Or that Huckabee lied about receiving the testimony of women about the case in question?
To me, the latter is far, far worse. “Whacked-out conspiracy theory” is a matter of opinion. “Lied about the testimony of rape survivors” is pretty objective. I won’t care overmuch if President Kucinich launches a sympathetic investigation of the 9-11 “truth” nonsense; I will be very concerned if he pretends that the physicists and engineers who send him rebuttal material, never did that.
One is a difference of opinion - in the Dumond case, admittedly, an opinion that is pretty far-fetched and stupid. And that does reflect on him - but I would not be standing up if the statement to the audience was “stand up if you’ve never believed something far-fetched and stupid”, and I doubt many people here would, either.
The other is shitting on the testimony of raped women and trying to literally disappear them from the record. That’s monstrous.
Is adhering to a stupid political paranoid fantasy REALLY worse than being a moral monster? Are we THAT partisan?
“Is adhering to a stupid political paranoid fantasy REALLY worse than being a moral monster? Are we THAT partisan? ”
I don’t think anyone is saying this and I’m not sure where you got it. I’m not sure what sort of strawperson you’re trying to conjure, but at this point you’re really flailing.
Huckabee’s partisanship directly contributed to his decision, which directly contributed to the rape and murder of at least one woman. That makes his partisanship in this instance pretty damned evil.
That Huckabee made a political decision based on some whacked-out conspiracy theory?
Or that Huckabee lied about receiving the testimony of women about the case in question?
Why are you pretending that these are two separate issues? Huckabee tried to cover up that he’d received the testimony because it showed that he ignored it and the rest of the facts in favor of his whacked-out conspiracy theory.
I won’t care overmuch if President Kucinich launches a sympathetic investigation of the 9-11 “truth” nonsense; I will be very concerned if he pretends that the physicists and engineers who send him rebuttal material, never did that.
I would be extremely worried if President Kucinich started making public policy based on what 9/11 whackos think happened. Pretending that he didn’t receive the rebuttal would only be additional proof of irrationality.
There’s a difference between believing something weird and taking concrete steps based on that belief. To use a non-political example, a lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens, but only a few of them joined the Heaven’s Gate cult.
“There’s a difference between believing something weird and taking concrete steps based on that belief. To use a non-political example, a lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens, but only a few of them joined the Heaven’s Gate cult.”
I’ve often wondered whether the christian prohibitions against suicide were put in place precisely to counter a possible tendency to skip “real” life and head straight for the after-life. The way they build up heaven makes it sound so attractive…(ummmm, heaven!…)
‘Course that’s just crazy talk. I mean, they didn’t even HAVE bunk beds, Nikes, and purple shrouds back in the day…
“Yup - let’s give rape exactly the same sentence as rape/murder.
Of course, if you include murder there’s one less witness…
Good thinking, Einstein.”
That doesn’t even remotely make sense.
But *WHAT* a surprise, the rape apologist getting all upset about someone not apologising for rapists.
Piss off, asshat.
“Huckabee’s partisanship directly contributed to his decision, which directly contributed to the rape and murder of at least one woman. That makes his partisanship in this instance pretty damned evil. ”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t rapists/sex offenders have a high recidivism rate?
Add incompetent and stupid to the list.
Betty Boondoogle, I believe what Phoenician was trying to point out was that from the rapist’s POV, if he gets the same sentence for rape+murder that he would for just the rape alone, he might decide it was in his best interests to kill his victim rather than let her live. He reduces his chances of getting caught (the primary witness is dead) and he incurs no greater risk of punishment than he did for just the rape.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m just pointing out that the misogyny that drives a man to rape probably shouldn’t be given and excuse to kill too…
“Yup - let’s give rape exactly the same sentence as rape/murder. Of course, if you include murder there’s one less witness… Good thinking, Einstein.”
That doesn’t even remotely make sense.
You’re just not very smart, are you?
Betty Boondoogle, I believe what Phoenician was trying to point out was that from the rapist’s POV, if he gets the same sentence for rape+murder that he would for just the rape alone, he might decide it was in his best interests to kill his victim rather than let her live. He reduces his chances of getting caught (the primary witness is dead) and he incurs no greater risk of punishment than he did for just the rape.
I’d have to dig out the stats again, and it’s been a long time since I read them when I worked for Justice. IIRC, the deterrent effects of sentences relies mainly on perceptions of getting caught - if sentences are “tough”, then the actual length of sentence doesn’t matter that much, but the (perceived) chances of getting convicted do.
This ignores, of course, the theoretical legal principle of proportionality, which would better equate rape with GBH or aggravated assault, and the practical legal problems for both the prosecution and conduct of such cases - prosecuters would be less likely to bring rape charges alone to trial, the defense would be more likely to require a trial and less likely to plea, and the courts would be more likely to require better protection for defendents.
The idea of imposing a really harsh sentence, while emotionally satisfying, is at odds with the goal of increasing convictions. You cannot both deal with the inherent problems of making it easier to get a conviction in the typical “he said she said” situation and substantially increase the penalty for those convictions.
If you want to increase conviction rates, get rid of or decrease the War on Drugs and channel some of those funds into dealing with sexual assault.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t rapists/sex offenders have a high recidivism rate?
IIRC, there’s a high recidivism rate for most violent crimes, except murders of passion. There’s a drop-off after age 40 or so, there’s some evidence that addressing cognitive deficits (i.e. fucked-up thinking) and life skills (i.e. keeping a job and getting by in society) can reduce recidivism, and there’s been some successful work with treatment programmes for pedophilia.
I spent a couple of months once reading through material relating to recidivism and risk factors (helping categorise and organise a specialist library). There’s the potential to reduce a lot of human misery if a society can just address recidivism and reintegrating criminals effectively.