Response to Urquhart

Urquhart writes: "Why is the fact that Janklow is a Republican relevant?"

It's not specifically relevant. I'd find it as outrageous were it a Democrat. I do feel that "in general" (and bear in mind, I lived with Gov. Gray Davis and his inexcusable refusal to issue paroles*, so I know it's a bipartisan disease) the toughening of sentencing standards is a Republican issue. Though many Democrats are equally strict, it is one issue that has been "driven" by conservatives. Many Democrats, like Davis, take insanely harsh positions on "law-and-order" issues to compensate for a perceived "softness" that is injustifiable from a purely prescriptive position (part of the reason why Davis never advocated the formal abolition of the parole system, though he instituted a de facto abolition)...

If Bill Janklow was equally generous in granting pardons to repentant black men, then I'll give him credit for ideological consistency (though I'm not sure remorse alone, or promises not to relapse should be sufficient legal conditions). So, I must confess that Janklow might NOT be a "law-and-order" Republican (he certainly showed enough disdain for the law to make such a position ludicrously hypocritical).

I would still argue that no politician should advocate stricter enforcement of the law unless they are prepared to see that law equally applied to ALL violators. If a law is so harsh that a policy-maker feels compelled to waive its operation in the case of their own loved ones, then that law should not be applied as a general rule at all. If "sorry" is good enough, then everyone should be allowed to say they're "sorry." If it isn't good enough, then it isn't good enough.

CORRECTION: I originally stated "pardons" where I meant to state "parole." Davis had a policy of uniformly denying all parole requests which was far more draconian than a mere "no-pardon-policy."