<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Makah tribe members sentenced for illegal whale hunt]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/whalin1/ Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:31:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/whalin1/1 very sad

This is a very sad episode in a terrible story.  I weep for the shame that the Makah must be feeling, and for the frustration and bitterness that the scofflaw whalers must have felt over the past couple of years -- even as I wept for their victim, dying in pain and terror last September.

Judge Arnold sounds like someone I would love to meet.  From the Seattle Times article:

<<
The judge made his displeasure plain from the bench, stating that while Sherman Alexie is his favorite author and his interest in tribal matters intense -- he referenced a personal library full of books about Indian affairs -- he could not sympathize with what the whalers had done.

"They decided to take the law into their own hands. They defied their own community and the laws of this country, which they well knew."
>>

Are the sentences too light?, as many in the animal welfare community seem to think.  From what I can tell, I think they are not.  The two defendants who got prison time are reported to have been shocked as their sentences were read, especially the one who got five months, after the prosecutors had asked for only 60 days; so already they have begun to learn a lesson -- whatever the lesson might be.

In general, when it comes to imprisonment, our justice system is horribly unsatisfactory.  Besides the fact that too many people are sentenced to prison for non-violent crimes, and besides the fact that a disproportionate number of them are poor people of color, the whole concept of imprisonment-as-punishment is seriously ethically flawed.  Whenever a society deems it suitable to sequester one of its members, the purpose should NOT be punishment (nor should it be "rehabilitation," an unfortunate and misleading term); it should be assisting the positive moral evolution of the prisoner.

These two whalers will be unlike most other imprisoned convicts in many ways.  Their experiences, values, and sense of self set them apart from mainstream Euro-American society.  There is no telling how they will react to their imprisonment; and it is not easy to predict that at the ends of their terms, they will emerge from prison better people.  The supervised probation, for all five of the whalers, if it is done consistently and thoughtfully, would seem to be a more promising way to go.

]]> very sad

This is a very sad episode in a terrible story.  I weep for the shame that the Makah must be feeling, and for the frustration and bitterness that the scofflaw whalers must have felt over the past couple of years -- even as I wept for their victim, dying in pain and terror last September.

Judge Arnold sounds like someone I would love to meet.  From the Seattle Times article:

<<
The judge made his displeasure plain from the bench, stating that while Sherman Alexie is his favorite author and his interest in tribal matters intense -- he referenced a personal library full of books about Indian affairs -- he could not sympathize with what the whalers had done.

"They decided to take the law into their own hands. They defied their own community and the laws of this country, which they well knew."
>>

Are the sentences too light?, as many in the animal welfare community seem to think.  From what I can tell, I think they are not.  The two defendants who got prison time are reported to have been shocked as their sentences were read, especially the one who got five months, after the prosecutors had asked for only 60 days; so already they have begun to learn a lesson -- whatever the lesson might be.

In general, when it comes to imprisonment, our justice system is horribly unsatisfactory.  Besides the fact that too many people are sentenced to prison for non-violent crimes, and besides the fact that a disproportionate number of them are poor people of color, the whole concept of imprisonment-as-punishment is seriously ethically flawed.  Whenever a society deems it suitable to sequester one of its members, the purpose should NOT be punishment (nor should it be "rehabilitation," an unfortunate and misleading term); it should be assisting the positive moral evolution of the prisoner.

These two whalers will be unlike most other imprisoned convicts in many ways.  Their experiences, values, and sense of self set them apart from mainstream Euro-American society.  There is no telling how they will react to their imprisonment; and it is not easy to predict that at the ends of their terms, they will emerge from prison better people.  The supervised probation, for all five of the whalers, if it is done consistently and thoughtfully, would seem to be a more promising way to go.

]]>