Should Dirk Diggler be pardoned?

[armadillo]

Of course I mean the actor who portrayed Diggler in Boogie Nights, Mark Wahlberg. Attempted murder and robbery are hardly youthful indiscretions.

 

Mark Wahlberg, who is seeking a pardon for an assault conviction in 1988, says he has worked hard since then to better himself as a person, not a celebrity, and serve as a positive influence for children.

The 43-year-old Oscar-nominated Fighter actor and father of four submitted his petition two weeks ago to the office of the governor of his native Massachusetts. When he was 16 and living in Dorchester, Boston's largest neighborhood, he was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, convicted of assault and spent more than a month in jail for attacking two Vietnamese men during an attempted robbery. During the incident, the actor used profanities and racist language.

"I've been spending the past 27 years trying to correct the mistakes that I've made," Wahlberg told E! News. "I'm not trying to gain a pardon because I feel like, well, now I'm rich and successful. I didn't ask for it five years, 10 years, 20 years, 25 years after the fact. "

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/605811/mark-wahlberg-explains-why-he-s-seeking-pardon-over-1988-assault-case-i-have-done-tons-of-work-to-better-myself

[bigvalboy]

Of course I mean the actor who portrayed Diggler in Boogie Nights, Mark Wahlberg. Attempted murder and robbery are hardly youthful indiscretions.

 

Mark Wahlberg, who is seeking a pardon for an assault conviction in 1988, says he has worked hard since then to better himself as a person, not a celebrity, and serve as a positive influence for children.

The 43-year-old Oscar-nominated Fighter actor and father of four submitted his petition two weeks ago to the office of the governor of his native Massachusetts. When he was 16 and living in Dorchester, Boston's largest neighborhood, he was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, convicted of assault and spent more than a month in jail for attacking two Vietnamese men during an attempted robbery. During the incident, the actor used profanities and racist language.

"I've been spending the past 27 years trying to correct the mistakes that I've made," Wahlberg told E! News. "I'm not trying to gain a pardon because I feel like, well, now I'm rich and successful. I didn't ask for it five years, 10 years, 20 years, 25 years after the fact. "

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/605811/mark-wahlberg-explains-why-he-s-seeking-pardon-over-1988-assault-case-i-have-done-tons-of-work-to-better-myself

 

I say yes. Just my initial thought, but if we want to overlook the indiscretions of Michael Brown, and focus on the altercation that happened after that, and talk about what a tragedy it was, with so many people saying that his conduct and theft at the liquour store beforehand isn't the issue, then certainly we should overlook the indiscretions of a 16 year old boy, 27 years ago. For me it is a non-issue. Our focus should be on what is front and center in the news today. The DC and NYC march is worth our focus, as is the demise of Cosby and how he damaged so many lives, Whalberg is simply unimportant. We wouldn't even be talking about it, if he wasn't famous.

[+ purplekow]

He should not need an official pardon to forgive himself for the actions he took as a 16 year old. He should not expect society to pardon the kind of actions he took back then. He should, if he has not already done so, ask for forgiveness from the men he harassed and attacked.

I assume that an official pardon has some additional benefit to Mr. Walberg, what that benefit is, could alter my opinion

[MsGuy]

I assume that an official pardon has some additional benefit to Mr. Walberg, what that benefit is, could alter my opinion

 

Maybe he wants to buy a gun or take his kids hunting. Maybe he wants to vote or run for office (felony civic disabilities vary by state). Maybe he wants to work with his son's boy scout troop. Who knows? Why should his motivation make any difference in granting a pardon?

 

As long as he has also taken the trouble to look up as many of the guys he beat up as can be found (not just the one he was convicted for attacking) and offered reasonable compensation for any damages he caused, then why not give him a pardon? Obviously he's not the Southie thug he started life as. (I realize that the statute of limitations has long since run on his actions. This goes to the sincerity of his regret.)

 

If I recall right, several of his targets were pretty severely beaten and he seems to have enough surplus wealth at present to make a gesture toward compensation. Wishing he had not messed up his own life and regretting he messed up the life of another in the process is not quite the same thing.

[+ purplekow]

If his motivation is to vote, that is surely different than if his motivation is to buy a gun. Keeping a gun out of the hands of a man who was accused of attempted murder and convicted of assault, seems like a good idea. After years of a life as a law abiding citizen, returning the vote seems appropriate.

 

I am not sure if a felony as a minor prevents either of those things, If there is a tangible benefit to Mr. Wahlberg, then what that benefit is does have an impact on my opinion. If he merely wants his conviction erased, I share the opinion of Omar Khayyam:

 

The moving finger writes and having writ,

Moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit,

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

[Strafe13]

From an article I read elsewhere a few days ago, Wahlberg seeks the pardon because the convictions hamper some of his business endeavors by restricting the kinds of licenses he or his businesses need to operate in certain jurisdictions. I believe some of his charitable efforts are also inhibited due to some of the continuing punishments meted out to those with criminal records. I disagree with the false equivalency between Wahlberg's actual criminal convictions for far more serious offenses and the alleged minor offense of which Mike Brown was accused of, but killed before he could answer for.

 

In any event, the pardon is a side issue. The bigger, more relevant issue is that our society continues to make life far too difficult for those convicted of crimes, by inflicting additional, long-lasting collateral punishments that are not actually part of the penalties directly attached to the offenses when they are sentenced. These people have already served their time and paid their debt to society, but they are penalized, seemingly in perpetuity, by imposing unrelated future consequences, such as prohibition of acquiring certain licenses, legalized job discrimination, and being stripped of voting rights, and the like. Wahlberg's exceptional case notwithstanding, these additional penalties create perpetual underclasses, and, given the discriminatory impact of our criminal justice system, severely undermines the voting power and economic earning potential of large proportions of communities of color, only further contributing to the difficulties faced therein. It's a particularly vicious cycle of inequality and oppression that contributes, at least in part, to the problems motivating tens of thousands of today's protesters.

 

If his motivation is to vote, that is surely different than if his motivation is to buy a gun. Keeping a gun out of the hands of a man who was accused of attempted murder and convicted of assault, seems like a good idea. After years of a life as a law abiding citizen, returning the vote seems appropriate.

 

I am not sure if a felony as a minor prevents either of those things, If there is a tangible benefit to Mr. Wahlberg, then what that benefit is does have an impact on my opinion. If he merely wants his conviction erased, I share the opinion of Omar Khayyam:

 

The moving finger writes and having writ,

Moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit,

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

[+ purplekow]

From an article

In any event, the pardon is a side issue. The bigger, more relevant issue is that our society continues to make life far too difficult for those convicted of crimes, by inflicting additional, long-lasting collateral punishments that are not actually part of the penalties directly attached to the offenses when they are sentenced. These people have already served their time and paid their debt to society, but they are penalized, seemingly in perpetuity, by imposing unrelated future consequences, such as prohibition of acquiring certain licenses, legalized job discrimination, and being stripped of voting rights, and the like. .

 

Those punishments are part of the actual penalty for commiting felonies penalized with a predetermined length of jail time. The jail time is subject to guidelines but there is judicial discretion in that. The other penalties are in place by statute and while not specifically given as penalties at the time of sentencing, they are explicitly known as part of the penalty for commiting certain acts at the time of the sentencing. The reasonableness and fairness of these penalties is subject to debate and change, but for now, those penalties are part and parcel of being found guilty of certain felonies. Given the political climate in the country, it seems unlikely that any policitican is going to be coming out and clamoring for changes in the way these penalties are impacting the lives of the people who, as a result, have a lifetime of disadvantages. These social scars impact the lives of the perpetrators in the same way that physical and mental scars impact the lives of the victims.

[Guest]

I don't think he should receive special treatment due to being a celebrity. But I do think it's ridiculous if a 43 year-old is still being penalized for actions he committed as a child. I don't think a 43 year-old should ever be suffering from any penalty for anything he did as a child. Maybe an exception for actual murder.

[justaguy]

Exactly what I was thinking, Unicorn. Why should Wahlberg be treated differently from any other criminal? Because he's a celebrity?

[BSR]

For what it's worth, the victim of the beating for which Mark Wahlberg was arrested agrees that he should be granted a pardon. Contrary to what was widely reported (OMG, you mean People magazine isn't always accurate??), the victim insists that he was not blinded as the result of the assault. He had lost his left eye before even moving to the U.S. from South Vietnam. Mark Wahlberg is seeking a pardon because of the onerous, oftentimes life-long consequences of a felony conviction. I don't have a problem with a pardon for Mark Wahlberg because his is clearly a case of a criminal who reformed his ways. Does anybody honestly think Mark Wahlberg is a risk for recidivism?

 

Unfortunately, Wahlberg's case appears to be the exception, not the rule. Back in 2011, California started a realignment plan in its corrections system. Thousands of convicts in state prisons for "non-serious, non-violent, and non-sex crimes" were shifted over to county jails, where they often got early release. Since the program started, the crime rate has jumped in California whereas it's decreased in most of the rest of the country. Much of the crime has been committed by convicts on early release thanks to realignment, with a disturbing number of violent crimes committed by early-release convicts whose previous criminal record was nonviolent. When I was younger, the born & raised Catholic in me truly believed that criminals could be reformed. Certainly some, like Mark Wahlberg, can be. But in my middle age, for better or worse, I have a more cynical view of mankind. I don't like that I've changed my thinking, but the cold hard facts & figures on crime indicate that such cynicism is justified.

 

As much as I disagree with much of Strafe13's post, there is one issue on which we agree: the voting rights of ex-convicts. I differ from most of my conservative peers in that I believe that once a person's sentence is completed, s/he is entitled to vote. In stark contrast to a business license, a liquor license, or a casino license, voting in our country is considered a right, a right that should be held sacred in any just society. If a man has done his time and the sentence he was mandated to serve has come to an end, then he should regain full standing as a citizen, which includes the right to vote. I don't have an issue with criminal records, because as an employer, I would want to know that information. Nor do I have a problem with denial of 2nd Amendment rights, even though I'm one of the staunchest gun-rights supporters on this forum (which I realize isn't much of a distinction). You can't buy a bar because your felony record prohibits the issuance of a liquor license? Tough sh*t, pal. But denying a U.S. citizen the right to vote because he was busted dealing pot in college? No just democracy should operate that way. I might not like that he wants to legalize marijuana, but I'll defend his right to vote for it.

[bigvalboy]

For what it's worth, the victim of the beating for which Mark Wahlberg was arrested agrees that he should be granted a pardon. Contrary to what was widely reported (OMG, you mean People magazine isn't always accurate??), the victim insists that he was not blinded as the result of the assault. He had lost his left eye before even moving to the U.S. from South Vietnam. Mark Wahlberg is seeking a pardon because of the onerous, oftentimes life-long consequences of a felony conviction. I don't have a problem with a pardon for Mark Wahlberg because his is clearly a case of a criminal who reformed his ways. Does anybody honestly think Mark Wahlberg is a risk for recidivism?

 

Unfortunately, Wahlberg's case appears to be the exception, not the rule. Back in 2011, California started a realignment plan in its corrections system. Thousands of convicts in state prisons for "non-serious, non-violent, and non-sex crimes" were shifted over to county jails, where they often got early release. Since the program started, the crime rate has jumped in California whereas it's decreased in most of the rest of the country. Much of the crime has been committed by convicts on early release thanks to realignment, with a disturbing number of violent crimes committed by early-release convicts whose previous criminal record was nonviolent. When I was younger, the born & raised Catholic in me truly believed that criminals could be reformed. Certainly some, like Mark Wahlberg, can be. But in my middle age, for better or worse, I have a more cynical view of mankind. I don't like that I've changed my thinking, but the cold hard facts & figures on crime indicate that such cynicism is justified.

 

As much as I disagree with much of Strafe13's post, there is one issue on which we agree: the voting rights of ex-convicts. I differ from most of my conservative peers in that I believe that once a person's sentence is completed, s/he is entitled to vote. In stark contrast to a business license, a liquor license, or a casino license, voting in our country is considered a right, a right that should be held sacred in any just society. If a man has done his time and the sentence he was mandated to serve has come to an end, then he should regain full standing as a citizen, which includes the right to vote. I don't have an issue with criminal records, because as an employer, I would want to know that information. Nor do I have a problem with denial of 2nd Amendment rights, even though I'm one of the staunchest gun-rights supporters on this forum (which I realize isn't much of a distinction). You can't buy a bar because your felony record prohibits the issuance of a liquor license? Tough sh*t, pal. But denying a U.S. citizen the right to vote because he was busted dealing pot in college? No just democracy should operate that way. I might not like that he wants to legalize marijuana, but I'll defend his right to vote for it.

 

Excellent post.

[Strafe13]

We agree far more on this issue than you'd think. I don't have a problem, in general, with an ex-convict's record coming into play for those considering him/her for certain licenses, be it to sell alcohol or apply for a gun, or any other host of things. What I have a problem with is the tendency on behalf of the governmental agencies administering said licenses to automatically deny people's applications simply due to their records, rather than conducting a real, individualized assessment of the applicant and his/her qualifications and/or character so that he/she at least has a fair shot, instead of being screwed over as a matter of course. I think that's extremely poor policy, and creates a perpetual underclass of people who can never move forward in their lives. This is all the more complicated by the fact that they can't participate in the democratic process to attempt to remedy their situation the way that others can. It's a recipe for disaster and social unrest, particularly when selective enforcement of criminal law means that certain communities of color are disproportionately affected, and their voting power is diluted because of the very problem with which you seem to take the most issue. It would be great if Wahlberg could use his case to create more awareness of the systematic problem, rather than just getting an exception to benefit solely himself.

 

For what it's worth, the victim of the beating for which Mark Wahlberg was arrested agrees that he should be granted a pardon. Contrary to what was widely reported (OMG, you mean People magazine isn't always accurate??), the victim insists that he was not blinded as the result of the assault. He had lost his left eye before even moving to the U.S. from South Vietnam. Mark Wahlberg is seeking a pardon because of the onerous, oftentimes life-long consequences of a felony conviction. I don't have a problem with a pardon for Mark Wahlberg because his is clearly a case of a criminal who reformed his ways. Does anybody honestly think Mark Wahlberg is a risk for recidivism?

 

Unfortunately, Wahlberg's case appears to be the exception, not the rule. Back in 2011, California started a realignment plan in its corrections system. Thousands of convicts in state prisons for "non-serious, non-violent, and non-sex crimes" were shifted over to county jails, where they often got early release. Since the program started, the crime rate has jumped in California whereas it's decreased in most of the rest of the country. Much of the crime has been committed by convicts on early release thanks to realignment, with a disturbing number of violent crimes committed by early-release convicts whose previous criminal record was nonviolent. When I was younger, the born & raised Catholic in me truly believed that criminals could be reformed. Certainly some, like Mark Wahlberg, can be. But in my middle age, for better or worse, I have a more cynical view of mankind. I don't like that I've changed my thinking, but the cold hard facts & figures on crime indicate that such cynicism is justified.

 

As much as I disagree with much of Strafe13's post, there is one issue on which we agree: the voting rights of ex-convicts. I differ from most of my conservative peers in that I believe that once a person's sentence is completed, s/he is entitled to vote. In stark contrast to a business license, a liquor license, or a casino license, voting in our country is considered a right, a right that should be held sacred in any just society. If a man has done his time and the sentence he was mandated to serve has come to an end, then he should regain full standing as a citizen, which includes the right to vote. I don't have an issue with criminal records, because as an employer, I would want to know that information. Nor do I have a problem with denial of 2nd Amendment rights, even though I'm one of the staunchest gun-rights supporters on this forum (which I realize isn't much of a distinction). You can't buy a bar because your felony record prohibits the issuance of a liquor license? Tough sh*t, pal. But denying a U.S. citizen the right to vote because he was busted dealing pot in college? No just democracy should operate that way. I might not like that he wants to legalize marijuana, but I'll defend his right to vote for it.

[armadillo]

Apparently Marky Mark has more than one racial incident under his belt:

 

Just 16 in 1988, the boy who would become film star Mark Wahlberg assaulted two Asian men while trying to steal two cases of beer from a convenience store.

 

More than 25 years later, Wahlberg, a devout Catholic and philanthropist, has made a much publicized — and much debated — request for a pardon for his crime.

 

But now, another of Wahlberg’s victims — not one of the Asian men, but an African American woman he attacked in 1986 — says the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shouldn’t forgive and forget hate crimes, even if they were committed by a movie star.

 

“I don’t think he should get a pardon,” Kristyn Atwood, 38, of Decatur, Ga., told the Associated Press. She was a Boston fourth grader on a field trip to the beach when Wahlberg and his partners-in-crime threw rocks and yelled racial epithets, including the n-word, at her and her classmates.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/21/mark-wahlberg-racial-violence-victim-says-actor-shouldnt-be-pardoned/

[JT Brooklyn]

Hell No! Next he will be running for Boston Mayor!