Editorial from The American Chronicle

Proof That Rhetoric About Prisoner Rehabilitation Is A Lie

Top of Form 1

By Randy L. Harrington

(Randy Harrington is a free-lance journalist who has practiced law, medicine and psychology. He brings a unique perspective to his life views. He lives in Chandler, Arizona.) Bottom of Form 1

May 31, 2006

PHOENIX – A rehabilitated murderer, James Hamm has been denied the privilege to practice law, and the United States Supreme Court on May 22, 2006 refused to hear Hamm's appeal. Fighting Hamm to keep him from practicing law were at least fourteen individual lawyers, and at least three large law firms, and the State Bar of Arizona, including the Arizona Attorney General, and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. The message sent by the U.S. Supreme Court to millions of Americans, as well as to Hamm, is that there is no such thing a rehabilitation for ex-
convicts. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how productive of a human being you become – you will never be rehabilitated. The Hamm story is an interesting success story that he should be proud of regardless of the actions of the Arizona Supreme Court, and hundreds of lawyers, and law firms blocking Hamm's efforts to engage in a chosen profession.

Arizona Department of Corrections Director Dora Schriro campaigns for taxpayer dollars at every opportunity telling taxpayers that rehabilitation is the key to reducing prison overcrowding and recidivism. You can't pick up a newspaper, magazine, listen to the radio, or watch television without some politician quoting the recidivism numbers. They all say that rehabilitation is the key to keeping ex-convicts from going back to prison, and reducing prison overcrowding.

Hamm with very little help from the system recognized the need for rehabilitation long before it became popular with politicians, and agency heads. Hamm was accused by the Arizona Supreme Court of not being honest in his application to practice law. Honesty is an interesting concept spouting from the mouths of government bureaucrats who pander for money like snake oil salesmen with their claims of rehabilitation as the answer to prison overcrowding, and recidivism. As a society we missed the boat in proving that rehabilitation is possible by not allowing Hamm to become an attorney. Rehabilitation doesn't work because collectively the American taxpayer doesn't want it to work, and those in power in our justice system won't allow it to work because it would be detrimental to their very jobs.

Hamm like so many American's bought into that myth that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He foolishly believed in the utopian concept of rehabilitation. In the end he contributed to an even higher public debt. For example, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas spent taxpayer money -- that should have gone towards rehabilitating ex-convicts -- to write a brief for the Arizona Supreme Court opposing Hamm's Application to practice law. The Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard assigned staff attorneys from his office to fight Hamm at the United States Supreme Court level. The State Bar of Arizona spent thousands of dollars, and assigned several attorneys to file briefs, and make oral argument against Hamm's Application to practice law.

I know James and Donna Hamm. Perhaps the only reason that James Hamm will not be admitted to the practice of law is because the Hamm's are the only ones to stand up to state government and expose the fallacy of government proposed rehabilitation of prisoners. They are in the trenches daily doing the most distasteful advocacy for the rights of prisoners, and their families.

In 1974 James Hamm murdered a man in a drug-related crime in Tucson. His co-defendant also murdered one victim. He plead guilty to one count of first degree murder and – unusual for almost any prisoner – filed no appeal to the sentence. He was sentenced to life in Arizona prison, with no eligibility for parole for twenty-five years.

Facing life in prison he wanted to find out what went wrong. Prior to his murder arrest he had divorced his first wife, began to drift around aimlessly, and had taken to the streets of Tucson. He began abusing alcohol, and drugs. He had some divinity school training, and had worked as a part-time preacher. What went wrong?

During his 17 years in prison he began a course of self-reflection and study. He helped other prisoners learn to read, wrote grant applications for libraries, handicapped programs, and obtained a summa cum laude degree from Norther n Arizona University in Sociology. An Arizona Governor commuted his sentence, and he was released on parole in July 1992.

Upon release from prison he performed thousands of hours of community service. He attended law school receiving a law degree from the Arizona State University College of Law. He sat for, and passed the bar examination in July 1999. He was discharged from parole as a free man in 2001. In 2004 he applied to become a lawyer with the State Bar of Arizona.

The Arizona Supreme Court denied him admission to the State Bar. The United States Supreme Court on May 22, 2006 refused to hear his case.

Two-hundred and thirty years ago Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words in our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…." I wonder what kind of conversation Jefferson and Hamm would have today? Everybody ought to have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor and hard work. To James Hamm that is the right to be admitted to practice law because he has labored without much help to rehabilitate himself and become a productive member of our society. Granting Hamm's request would go a long way toward making the rhetoric about rehabilitation, and reduction in recidivism a reality.

###