|
Webb Hubbell
The San Francisco Chronicle
June 10, 2001
And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him
would kill him -- Genesis 4:15 .
I am an ex-con.
I spent 18 months in federal prison after pleading guilty in 1994
to tax and mail fraud charges resulting from the Whitewater investigation.
Before that, I practiced law in Arkansas, was elected mayor of
Little Rock and served as chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme
Court. In 1993, I was appointed associate attorney general of the
United States, the third-highest law enforcement official in the
land.
I figured that, with those skills and experience -- not to mention
the support of my friends and family -- I would be able to start
over and renew my life as a contributing member of society once
I had paid my debt to it and got out of prison.
I soon learned, as have millions of other Americans, that I carry
a mark that keeps me behind bars, even on the outside.
In the prison reform movement, it's called the "mark of Cain,"
but contrary to the biblical injunction, God's mercy isn't attached.
Rather, it shackles former offenders like me with restrictions barring
us -- often permanently -- from the means to live a normal life.
Legally, these restrictions are called "civil disabilities."
More realistically, they are called "civil death," a condition
that, for many of us, offers little option but to return whence
we came: to prison.
Ex-felons are not typically high on most readers' sympathy list.
After all, we got what we deserved, right? But there are so many
of us -- approximately 2 million currently behind bars, 4.5 million
under some sort of supervision and 600,000 of us due to be turned
out onto the streets this year alone. The majority of us will be
re-arrested and reincarcerated within three years of our release.
It's a vicious revolving door that increasing numbers of experts
and policy makers realize must be changed.
"Once someone is punished, we have to figure out a way for
the punishment to end and for them to get on with their lives,"
Raul Russi, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's probation commissioner,
told USA Today. Right now, said Russi, who also headed the New York
state parole board, ex-cons have just two options: "Either
they work or they go back to jail."
Among the opportunities closed to me as I walked out of Cumberland
Federal Prison in Maryland: Almost any job requiring a federal license.
Had I possessed any, they would have been automatically revoked.
It is highly unlikely that I could ever obtain a custom broker's
license, an export license, a merchant marine license, or even a
locomotive engineer's license. (Somehow, it's hard for me to understand
how my driving a train, once every little boy's dream, could be
a menace to society.)
I cannot become a director, officer, employee or controlling stockholder
of any federally insured institution such as a bank or a savings
and loan. I cannot be an adviser, officer or director of a labor
organization for 13 years after my conviction.
The Commodities Futures Trading Commission may refuse to register
me as a broker, adviser or commodities pool operator. The Securities
and Exchange Commission prohibits me from becoming an investment
adviser for 10 years. The secretary of Health and Human Services
can bar me from working in any aspect of health care if federal,
state or local dollars are involved. I couldn't even sweep the floors
of a nursing home.
State laws are a crazy quilt of disqualifications, although they
have one thing in common: They are far more draconian than federal
restrictions. Any job that requires a state license is probably
out, unless one has the money to hire an expert who, just maybe,
could guide you through a panoply of bureaucratic hoops.
In California, with a marijuana possession conviction, you can
probably kiss goodbye a career in teaching or real estate. With
a conviction for income tax evasion, you'll never be a doctor.
I lost my license to practice law in my home state of Arkansas forever.
The chances of getting a license to practice in another state are
remote. Other occupations most likely closed to me include: certified
public accountant, physician, dentist, insurance agent, nurse, real
estate broker, pharmacist, landscape architect, law enforcement
officer, teacher, day-care worker, veterinarian, bartender, dietitian,
engineer, barber, cosmetologist, mortician, speech pathologist,
social worker.
Getting on with one's life also involves family and social obligations.
In Virginia, I could not raise money for my church or for the nonprofit
organization where I work because it violates an obscure state law
regarding certain types of felons. One young woman from Pennsylvania
who corresponded with me after she served time for a minor role
in a drug operation had a hard time explaining to her daughter why
she couldn't attend a parent-teacher conference. It's because some
states, including California, have passed laws banning ex-felons
from school grounds.
Ah, yes, drugs. The mark of Cain extends here, too, even to the
most minor offenses. Under pressure from the Bush administration
to enforce a law passed during the Clinton presidency, college campuses
are denying loans to students with misdemeanor drug convictions.
This could have devastating consequences. Last year, 9,200 student
applicants were denied aid because of an admitted drug conviction.
Under Bush administration rules, any student who refuses to answer
the question about a drug conviction will also be denied aid. Last
year, 279,000 students left that question blank.
An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette noted, "During
his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush refused to answer
questions about whether he used drugs in his youth, but a similar
demurral by student-aid applicants will not be tolerated."
Such hard-line policies can only make an already disastrous situation
worse.
Of the 145,000 inmates in federal prison, according to Fortune
magazine, 58 percent are in for drug offenses, compared to 25 percent
in 1980. How much higher would the administration like that percentage
to go?
President Bush, who has admitted to "youthful indiscretions,"
is lucky. He lives in the White House, while others caught in similar
indiscretions are barred from public housing. The president commands
our armed forces; others who were caught are barred from serving
in the military. The president will retire to a life of federal
benefits and service on corporate boards and charitable foundations.
Those less lucky may never be allowed inside a corporate boardroom.
Perhaps his own daughters' recent brushes with the law will prompt
some rethinking by the president.
Ironically, the founding fathers did not prohibit felons from holding
elected office. Aside from a few statutory disqualifications, a
felony conviction does not disqualify a person from federal employment.
I could conceivably run for president or even work again in the
Justice Department (though I'm not waiting for Attorney General
John Ashcroft to call). California and 35 other states (with the
notable exception, as we know, of Florida) return the right to vote
to felons once their debt is paid.
For most of the nonwhite, poorly educated inmates who make up the
majority of America's prison population, running for president is
not a high priority. For those who want to go straight -- and in
my experience as an inmate and a counselor, the majority do -- the
question is whether they will be given that chance or whether the
growing number of barriers will shackle them permanently to the
lowest rung of the American ladder.
Yet, for the most part, rehabilitation remains a dirty word.
Perhaps it's time to remove the mark of Cain.
The Justice Department has made a tentative start, backing pilot
"reentry partnership" programs in eight states, including
Nevada, which bring together corrections institutions, local police,
businesses, faith-based and community organizations to help ex-offenders
re-enter society.
There are additional pilot programs -- also backed by the Justice
Department -- involving "re-entry courts" (modeled after
drug courts) which work with ex-offenders. These courts have the
power to lift various restrictions so long as the ex-offender stays
with the program. Unfortunately, the courts cannot override state
or federal laws that restrict employment opportunities.
We need to make these restrictions part of a judge's discretion,
which he or she could impose -- or not. Further, restrictions should
be tailored to the actual crime. For example, an individual found
guilty of bank fraud might incur a five-year ban from working in
a financial institution but not lose his right, once out of prison,
to work in other fields.
What would be appropriate for me under this scenario? I think it
would be right for the judge to bar me from practicing law for at
least five years, while insisting that I take some ethics courses.
Were I to return to the profession, it would be under some form
of supervision for a period of time.
My hypothetical judge would prohibit me from acting in a fiduciary
capacity for a period of years as well. I think he would have agreed
with the further orders in my actual case: to make restitution to
the law firm from which I stole, to amend all my tax returns --
thus incurring substantial indebtedness to the IRS in past-due taxes,
interest and penalties. In addition to requiring that I speak to
inmates in Arkansas prisons for a year, at my expense, my hypothetical
judge would mandate an additional period of community service. All
these obligations would be appropriate in return for the removal
of the mark of Cain.
It is important that American society protect itself with appropriate
punishments for both violent and white-collar criminals. It is also
important that we don't extinguish the hopes for a second chance
held by hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans who leave our
prisons every year. Without that hope, and the means to realize
it, what do we expect these people to do?
Webb Hubbell, former associate attorney general of the United
States, is a senior research fellow at the National Center on Institutions
and Alternatives in Alexandria, Va.
|