HANLON/MCDUFFIE CONTINUED

Two sides to the Hanlon/McDuffie issue:

"Batman" wrote:

When did we become such an unforgiving society that we can not recognize a good man rising from the ashes of his wrongdoing? Why do we celebrate such a story in movies and written fiction and not in real life? We preach redemption to our children when we bring religion into their lives, yet we grant none to those who have earned it.

Those of us who were around in 1980 know what happened and the injustice of the acquittals that followed. Of all of the culpable parties, Hanlon was the only one who came forward and acknowledged his participation. The others denied everything and after being acquitted went on their merry way. To now punish the only remorseful and repentant one is unconscienceable.

For the Supreme Court to determine that Hanlon's acts were so egregious as to deny him entry now or at any time in the future is beyond hypocritical. Considering the attorneys who have been convicted of innumerable felonies not being disbarred, judges who have committed criminal acts and not removed from the bench and applicants who have shown no history of rehabilitation from their own criminal acts, this decision smacks of politics and pandering. Obviously those most aggrieved by Hanlon's conduct think better of him than those who don't know him at all.

And Abe Laeser responded:

Oh, you mean the Hanlon who came forward before the autopsy? The one who watched / helped / killed {your choice} and did the 'right thing' for HIMSELF. 

Yes, he was able to persuade Adorno and Yoss that they should grant immunity - before he had anything to disclose. Wise decision. 

No, not for the concept of Justice. No, not because he was motivated to go after killer cops. He cut the best deal for Hanlon. He knew that the stories that every one of the killers had spoken and put into reports were complete lies. They killed a man out of anger. He kept silent, denied his own actions, and now what?

I still have my memo outlining to Ms. Reno why I thought Hank + George were wrong. She decided otherwise. I voted to prosecute Vaverka and Hanlon first. But that was late in 1979 and nothing would have brought Arthur McDuffie back.

Do I appreciate that Hanlon has tried to lead an honorable life since? Certainly. But the stain has not faded. Can he become a cop again? Nor should he be an attorney.

I still foolishly believe we are an honorable calling -- that our honor and trust are our finest tools. Hanlon did what he had to do to save his skin. Please do not confuse that with honor and trust.

Rumpole says: Two valid view points. I guess the issue is whether you consider redemption and whether redemption is sufficient to earn a place in the Bar. You know, I think that if Hanlon had gone to medical school instead of law school he would not have any problem in becoming a licensed doctor. If we can trust someone to reach inside us to save our life, can't we trust someone enough to write a will, or do a closing, or a divorce? I think that being a police officer is a very tough job. There are pressures the average person cannot comprehend. What Hanlon did on that street that night was very was wrong, and what he has done since then apparently has all been very right. I'm willing to give him a second chance, but that is me, and I didn't prosecute the killers who killed McDuffie and I didn't have to deal with the pain of explaining to his family why they were acquitted and why my office made a deal with Hanlon.