Tampilkan postingan dengan label Arts. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Arts. Tampilkan semua postingan

Jumat, 18 Mei 2012

Why O. Henry? Would pushing Jack Johnson pardon have more 'symbolic heft'?

The first bit of publicity for the Pardon O. Henry! campaign at pardonohenry.org is starting to roll in. Jordan Smith at the Austin Chronicle has a short item, and MSNBC's Kari Huus has a longer piece, comparing this campaign to efforts to pardon another great Texan, Jack Johnson, whose posthumous clemency application was rejected by President Obama in 2009:
In that effort, spearheaded by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the subject was black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson, who was imprisoned nearly a century ago for violation of the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines for "immoral purposes." The case was seen as punishment for Johnson's unapologetic relationships with white women, and a warning to other black men.
Ms. Huus (who btw has done good reporting on clemency issues), thinks that Jack Johnson's cause would be "arguably one with more symbolic heft." Grits, though, must respectfully disagree.

For starters, President Obama has already turned down Johnson's pardon, and as much as I supported that effort, which was notably led by GOP Congressional leaders, Grits doesn't expect the President to flip flop. But there's another reason I think championing O. Henry's pardon carries just as much if not more "symbolic heft" when it comes to critiquing the president's parsimonious pardon policies, and I articulated that view this morning over at the Pardon O. Henry! blog:
Why O. Henry?

The short answer is that this campaign didn't choose William Porter, President Barack Obama did (or more likely one of his speech writers). When the President quoted the great writer in the midst of the ceremonial pardoning of a turkey last Thanksgiving, it brought the absurdity of 21st-century clemency into crystal-clear perspective: The bird may be pardoned but the man may not be forgiven, even if he was innocent, indeed even as his prose is purloined.

Just as the pardoned bird was symbolic, so is centering a campaign for expanded use of presidential pardon power around a writer honored by the President, but from a clemency perspective only in the breach.
That's why, to me, a campaign for Porter's posthumous pardon has plenty of "symbolic heft," though I suppose it depends on precisely what one is trying to symbolize. Sign the petition. Tell Barack Obama to "Pardon O. Henry!" and reinvigorate presidential clemency powers.

Kamis, 17 Mei 2012

Grits launches petition to clear Texan writer: Pardonohenry.org

After Barack Obama last November quoted the renowned short story writer O. Henry while pardoning a turkey, even though the writer's own posthumous pardon requests had been denied, Grits just couldn't help myself: Readers may recall I authored a polemic titled, "Eat the turkey, pardon O. Henry!," and shortly thereafter, unbeknownst to all but a few, I purchased the URL domains for pardonohenry.org, com, and net.

Today Grits is pleased to announce the launch of the pardonohenry.org website, the main function of which is to host an online petition asking President Barack Obama to grant a posthumous pardon to the great short story writer. Prof. P.S. Ruckman, who blogs at Pardon Power, is collaborating, taking the lead to prepare the application.

O. Henry, born William S. Porter, may or may not have committed the crime of embezzlement for which he was convicted in Austin in 1897. He claimed innocence throughout, but he also jumped bail and fled to Honduras, returning to face trial and imprisonment in order to care for his dying wife. In the end, his guilt or innocence probably doesn't matter. He produced among the best short stories in American literature, some while incarcerated. Here's the full text of the petition:
To President Obama and the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice:

In this 150th year after William S. Porter's birth, I ask that you posthumously pardon him and in so doing honor this great American writer better known by his pen name: O. Henry.

O. Henry's works are among America's great contributions to English language literature, and he is widely credited with reinventing the short story. His writings were probably required reading at some point in your education. The nation's most prestigious short-story award is the PEN/O. Henry Prize. This year the US Postal Service will issue a stamp featuring his image. It's past time for the writer's recognition by the President as well in the form of a posthumous pardon.

Though you quoted O. Henry last year while pardoning a turkey, pardons are not mere jokes or symbols, nor should they be reserved for a turkey or two before Thanksgiving. They are a critical constitutional function that returns fairness and grace to a criminal justice system sorely short of those elements.
O. Henry always claimed innocence, but pardons are not just for the innocent. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 74 (1788) wrote that, "The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." As executive clemency has withered in use, America has seen the criminal justice system's cruel countenance blossom in full -- prisons overflowing with petty offenders, families broken, innocent people released after decades thanks to DNA tests that remain difficult to obtain.

Pardoning William S. Porter would signal that you understand and value the true purpose of executive clemency powers in the justice system -- not just as a symbol but also a remedy for both actual innocence and "unfortunate guilt," one that provides a healing salve even for century-old wounds.
Please sign the petition and promote it via social media, email lists, word of mouth or any other means at your disposal. The URL is easy to remember: Pardonohenry.org. We'll be adding more content as we go along, but for now there's also a blog at the site that includes some original items not seen on Grits, including:
Though as the petition says, it doesn't really matter, Grits is now fairly satisfied that William S. Porter was actually a victim of a false conviction lo these 115 years ago. The writer was depressed following the death of his wife and barely participated in his own defense, though he always insisted on his innocence. But the late Texas Third Court of Appeals Justice Trueman O'Quinn, an avid fan and collector of all things O. Henry, also believed Porter innocent and spent years unsuccessfully seeking his posthumous pardon. (After that, it should be mentioned, the now-departed curator at the O. Henry Museum in Austin filed another application during the George W. Bush Administration.) In a chapter O'Quinn authored in a book about the writer, Time to Write, he recorded that the prosecutor in Porter's case, Duval West (who went on to be appointed a federal judge in the Western District of Texas by Woodrow Wilson), years later 'told a reporter that he believed Will Porter was the victim of the banking practices of the day and innocent of intentional misappropriation of funds.'"

Even 100 years ago prosecutors weren't keen on admitting mistakes, so from the perspective of a pardon request that's a big deal. Both Trueman O'Quinn and Duval West, two of the preeminent Texas barristers of their respective generations, more closely examined the evidence than Grits ever will and both concluded Porter was likely innocent. Combine that with fatal flaws in the indictment, which claimed the alleged offenses occurred months after he'd left the bank and moved to Houston to write a column for the Post, and to me, absolutely Will Porter deserves pardon based on innocence, if not also for his contribution to American letters during and after his incarceration.

Innocent or not, "Why do this?," I'm inevitably asked. This project serves numerous goals for Grits. First and foremost, it amuses me, which some days is all it takes. Second, it highlights a bipartisan consensus among politicos and the media that has diminished clemency in recent decades, a trend which, in this age of mass incarceration, to me is the opposite of what's needed. And third, it honors and celebrates a legendary Texan writer and publisher whose Austin weekly, The Rolling Stone (no, not that one, Porter beat 'em to it), was the direct heir to William Brann's Iconoclast, a Texas journalism legend and the state's first, no-holds barred muckraking publication (Porter launched his magazine by buying out Brann at a low point for $250). At its zenith, Porter's Rolling Stone supposedly had 1,000 subscribers at a time when Austin had 11,000 residents, even if it always seemed to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

But there's one other, more fundamental reason for launching this project at this particular point in time: Grits should announce that just this week papers were filed to create the "Grits for Breakfast Action Fund," a Texas nonprofit for which we intend to seek 501c(4) status. (That means soon, but not quite yet, Paypal donations won't deduct sales tax: Will notify folks when; many have asked.) My hope is that this entity will become a vehicle to influence policy and legislation here in Texas, and aim to build up web organizing infrastructure headed into the session toward that end. The Pardon O. Henry! campaign provides an opportunity to get some of these e-activism tools set up and take them out for a test run on a project with bit more of a leisurely pace than anything that occurs at the Texas Legislature.

To summarize, this project was designed to be fun, to address a serious subject in (one hopes) a creative way, and to pay homage to my own roots as a Texan writer. But it also aims to lay the groundwork for future web activism promoting a wider array of criminal justice reforms. So go sign the petition, poke around the site, tell your friends, and help promote a national discussion on the decline of clemency and the resulting redaction of mercy from the American criminal justice system. And for heaven's sake smile while you're doing it, as though you've just savored one those classic, O. Henry twist endings.

MORE: See a press release announcing the petition drive.

Kamis, 02 Februari 2012

'Sending a message' on graffiti: Two approaches

Regular readers know Grits thinks "sending a message" though criminal penalties is one of the worst communication methods imaginable. Almost no one actually reads the laws, the media never reports on most of them, and when they do they get things wrong 1/3 to 1/2 the time. Besides, few criminals read the newspaper. If you want to "send a message," in general buying billboard space or TV time is a far superior method to any criminal-law one might pass, and that goes triple for crimes with very low clearance rates. Which brings us to two recent stories about "sending a message" regarding graffiti. The first arises out of Corpus Christi, where local officials have been obsessed with graffiti enforcement now for several years now, to little practical effect judging from continued public outcries and media hype over the problem. A story from KVII-TV this week made the "send a message" goal explicit:
As the war on graffiti vandalism rages, a word of warning from the people who's job it is prosecute taggers.  They say you will be caught, arrested and more than likely will go to prison.  It's the type of vandalism that's more than just a costly nuisance.  It's a crime.  Prosecutors want to send out a message to all "taggers" reminding them that this crime will get you prison time.

"You have to be held accountable for what you do...and that's why you're going to be doing time behind bars," says prosecutor Joe Mike Pena.
The problem with that message is that much of it is a bold-faced lie, particularly the contention that "you will be caught, arrested and more than likely will go to prison." At least for 99.9% of graffiti crimes (less than one tagger is arrested per 1,000 offenses), the overwhelming majority of offenses go unsolved and are not prosecuted.

How likely is it that taggers will go to prison? According to the Criminal Justice Impact Statement for a recent graffiti enhancement bill (discussed in this Grits post): "In fiscal year 2010, 212 offenders were placed on misdemeanor community supervision, 56 offenders were placed on felony community supervision, and 21 offenders were admitted to prison or state jail." So that's 289 people total convicted and sentenced for graffiti crimes in FY 2010 statewide, most of them juveniles. By contrast, there were hundreds of thousands of tags thrown up in Texas in 2010. The chances of getting caught and convicted are, in fact, minuscule. And even for those convicted, most of them (rightly) received misdemeanor probation, with just 7% going to prison. (mostly those who tagged a church, school, or community center, which now carries an automatic state jail felony charge).

Two recurring Grits themes are that heightened criminal penalties can't solve every social problem and that penalty enhancements have little effect on crimes with low clearance rates. Both observations apply in spades to graffiti crimes. The "message" sent by jacking up punishments for the handful of people caught is not only rarely delivered, it's in some ways a counterproductive one, serving to glamorize the activity for rebellious youth without actually solving the problem.

Meanwhile, a different and far more effectively delivered message about graffiti is being trumpeted in Dallas, where graffiti artist Shepard Fairey (the man who did the Obama Hope posters and was featured in Banksy's Exit Through the Gift Shop) has been hired to paint a dozen large, outdoor murals. Reports the Morning News (behind paywall):
Fairey and his team fly in on Sunday and begin scouting 12 to 15 locations on Monday before pulling out the paintbrushes on Tuesday. The end result will be at least a dozen giant murals (with one stretching 150 feet wide) in such communities as West Dallas, Oak Cliff and Deep Ellum. Highland Park is not on the list.
Dallas Contemporary, which revels in the edginess of Fairey’s art, commissioned the project. Its director, Peter Doroshenko, loves Fairey’s ability to provoke reaction, no matter where his eerily bold images leave their imprint.

Aside from two events feting Fairey, none of his art will be shown at the Design District museum, even as it foots the bill for the outdoor murals.

“We’re doing this project to go beyond our walls, our building,” says Doroshenko, who came to Dallas Contemporary 14 months ago and worked with Fairey on a project in the United Kingdom in 2006.

Doroshenko cites Fairey as one of several artists he hopes to bring to Dallas “who work in nontraditional or outdoor kinds of ways, so that you don’t have to travel to Toulouse or Tunisia to see their work. It’s here, in the city, where it will reach millions of people as they drive by on the freeway or on their way to work.” Fairey loves having an outdoor canvas, Doroshenko says, rather than having to confine his work to a museum. Fairey, like Doroshenko, revels in the notion of “adding art to a person’s everyday repertoire.”

Doroshenko calls the project “giving back to the community and on a grand scale.” He says he picked Fairey not just because he knows him but also because “all the street artists that work in Dallas or Texas are influenced by him.” Even city officials and private landlords have come to appreciate what Doroshenko calls Fairey’s “art intervention” in their communities.
This turn of events reminds me of a Grits headline from 2010: "Yesterday's graffiti is today's art and tomorrow's economic growth." Fairey's illegal tagging hobby has transformed him into an internationally known artist whose talents are so well recognized that he's now being paid (in Texas, no less) to do projects for which he previously would have been prosecuted.

So in Corpus Christi, prosecutors hope to "send a message" by prosecuting the one out of a thousand or so offenses where taggers are caught, while in Dallas they're sending a message with 150' wide murals that graffiti can be real art and that some graff writers must be viewed as true artists, worthy of the admiration of their peers.

Which "message" do you suppose will influence taggers more?

See related Grits posts:

Jumat, 09 Desember 2011

Eat the turkey, pardon O Henry! President quotes Texas writer but won't pardon him

UPDATE: See the Pardonohenry.org website and campaign blog which were inspired by this post. Sign a petition asking President Obama to pardon this great American writer.
____________________________

Oh cruel, bitter irony!

After legendary Austin short-story writer O Henry's pardon was turned down some years back, and given President Obama's own stingy record regarding pardons, it's especially annoying to learn, via PS Ruckman at Pardon Power, that President Obama's speech writers had the gall (or perhaps the philistinism) to include a quote from O Henry in the President's remarks "pardoning" a Thanksgiving turkey.

O Henry, whose pardon application has been on Ruckman's clemency watch list for ages, always claimed he was innocent, but when accused of embezzling $748 from the Austin bank he worked for, he fled to Honduras, returning to face federal charges in 1898 after his wife became terminally ill. In a practice that wouldn't be allowed in today's TDCJ, he "began writing stories to support his young daughter while he was in prison," moving to New York to continue his career after his release.

According to the Houston Chronicle's coverage in 1985, O Henry's (i.e, William Sydney Porter's) federal pardon application, championed by supporters including late-Texas state appellate court Judge Trueman O'Quinn, was turned down at that time because "A pardon isn't complete until it's accepted by the person, and a dead man can't accept it." In other words, Reagan's pardon office refused to issue a posthumous pardon.

As luck would have it, though, last year a Texas Attorney General's opinion cleared the way for the Texas Governor to issue posthumous pardons so that he could give one to Timothy Cole, who was falsely convicted of rape but wasn't exonerated until years after he died in prison. The Texas opinion took head on the question of whether the US President may issue pardons when the recipient is dead and cannot "accept" it: "the United States Supreme Court has since recognized that 'the requirement of consent [to a pardon] was a legal fiction at best' and has generally abandoned the acceptance doctrine since adopting it in 1833. Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 261 (1974)." So according to the formal legal advice given to Rick Perry, the President has full authority to issue posthumous pardons and the "acceptance" requirement is a "legal fiction."

Grits has argued previously that Governor Perry would be wise to use his gubernatorial pardon power more generously than usual this Christmas season, both to distinguish himself from his GOP rivals - none of whom presently possess comparable clemency authority - and to highlight President Obama's abysmal clemency record, which even the President's liberal supporters deplore. (Perry's isn't great, but it's better than Obama's, granting clemency in 2003 alone more often than has Obama during his entire tenure.) IMO that'd be good campaign strategy for an incumbent governor looking to burnish his positive image in the holiday season, using the authority of his office to seize press attention for a news cycle or two and to elevate himself above his rivals.

Why not issue a coupla dozen or so gubernatorial pardons as a news hook, then attack Obama for his Scrooge-like clemency practices and for quoting a Texan during his trivializing turkey-pardon who merits a posthumous pardon himself. It would cost him nothing, it's an homage to a revered and influential Texan, and it rebukes Barack Obama after the President used the words of the Texas writer whose pardon was snubbed to commemorate the disingenuous ritual of pardoning a turkey.

Grits says eat the turkey, pardon O Henry!

See related Grits posts: