Reply With Quote
Whatever happened to rehabilitation? I mean, the guy seems to be making an effort to redeem himself and change, and yet they won't let him work? What the ? I guess prison time is only about punishment after all.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/07/ki....ap/index.html
PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- A convicted murderer who graduated from law school after getting out of prison was denied admission to the bar Wednesday by the Arizona Supreme Court because of a lack of "good moral character."
James Hamm, who served 17 years for his part in a drug-related robbery that left two men dead, had asked the court to allow him to practice law even though a state court commission had recommended against his application, citing the seriousness of the crime and his failure to own up to his past.
The five-member court unanimously sided with the commission and the State Bar of Arizona, which also opposed his admission.
Chief Justice Ruth McGregor said the court has no rule automatically barring someone with Hamm's past from practicing law, but "an applicant with such a background must make an extraordinary showing of rehabilitation and present good moral character."
Among other things, the court said Hamm failed to take full responsibility for the murders. The justices cited Hamm's claim that he intended only to rob the men -- a statement the court said was inconsistent with the facts.
Hamm, 57, complained in an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press that his efforts to "atone for the lives I took" seemed to have made little impression on the court.
"That seems to have literally made no difference. That is very disappointing to me," said Hamm, who has been working as a paralegal in Phoenix. He said he might take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Matt Silverman, a spokesman for the State Bar of Arizona, said: "This is the right decision. It preserves the integrity of the legal profession."
The court also cited Hamm's failure to address his child support obligation for a son born in 1969 in its denial of his application.
The court said Hamm failed to make any effort to address the money owed until 2004, when he made his application for admission to the bar.
In 1974, Hamm, then 26, was selling marijuana when he was approached by two young men who wanted to buy 20 pounds of the drug. He and two accomplices decided to rob the men at gunpoint in the desert.
Hamm, initially charged with two counts of murder, pleaded guilty to one and was sentenced to life in prison.
He earned a bachelor's degree in sociology from Northern Arizona University through a prison program. After his sentence was commuted in 1989, he attended Arizona State University's law school.
He passed the bar exam in 1999 and last year filed his character and fitness application -- a requirement to practice law.
The family of one of the victims, Willard Morley, was very happy with the outcome, said friend and family spokeswoman Joni Hoffman.
Whatever happened to rehabilitation? I mean, the guy seems to be making an effort to redeem himself and change, and yet they won't let him work? What the ? I guess prison time is only about punishment after all.
WTF? Hey, if he is going to be rehabilited thats fine, but I think an offense such as murder is a damn good reason to keep somenoe from practicing law. I hope to practice law someday, and I think there is an obligation to be held to a higher standard of moral character in order to partake in that type of process.
Seriously, wtf?
Yeah that ing sucks, you kill one or two people and now you can't be a school teacher, cop, lawyer, or even vote....
What a ing piece of world....
well Manny, who's to say the guy doesn't meet that moral standard now? I mean, he could genuinely regret what he did. Besides, lets not forget he is a free man now, he did the time, payed his dues according to society. All I'm saying is if you're going to hold it against him for his entire life, why not just give him life in prison. I guess it boils down to wether you believe in rehabilitation or not, personally if the guy proves he is genuinely making an effort to redeem himself then I don't see why he can't practice law.
If good moral character is a condition, then being part of a drug related double murder definitely excludes you.
I would agree with you if he was denied a job or something similar. But he does not meet that particular standard.
There are so many lawyers that have not killed anybody but have no moral standards to practice law . . .
Since hen did you have to have good moral character, to be a lawyer.A convicted murderer who graduated from law school after getting out of prison was denied admission to the bar Wednesday by the Arizona Supreme Court because of a lack of "good moral character."
LINK?!??!
BTW Manu, chill out.
I wouldn't let this dude do much after being in prison.
Your being wayyyy too gullible.
I agree with you, and they should be upheld to the same standard with the same results. That why I said if "good moral values" is a pre-requisite then he doesn't qualify.
He can always represent himself!
how am I being gullible?
All lawyers should be put before a firing squad. They are the s of the world.
I think he means to imply that you take this man's word to easily. He was convicted of killing a man and now he wants to work in a position which is supposed to be defined by certain moral standards. (HA HA! I know!) I have no problem with him being kept from a career in law or politics for that matter. It's not like his crime was non violent or insignificant.
I noticed that this person of supposedly rehabilitated and good moral character never paid child support for a child who is now more than 30 years old until he wanted to be admitted to the bar. That says a lot about his moral character and motives to me.
I'm not taking his word. I'm assuming the guy has served the time he was given. He was released by the state, therefore I suppose they believe he is no longer a danger to society. If that's the case, I don't see why he can't practice law. All I'm saying is we can't hold people (murderers are still people, believe it or not) to double standards like that. Either he is fit to rejoin society and be a productive member of such, or he is not, and he should remain imprisoned. Which is it?
i wonder if duff will ever want to pass the bar...
Productive yes, but there are careers where you have to be licensed and bonded, or pass exams that require thing such as meeting requirements of good moral character. He knew what he was getting into when he chose that educational path and he chose it anyway. He's a big boy and it was his risk to take.
There are plenty of jobs out there for him.
Should he be allowed to carrry a gun? Should a child molester be allowed to keep the company of children?
What about the child support?
Notice the state court stated that there was no rule that would exclude him on the books, but that a person with his record would have to show great change/improvemnt/merit in order to be granted a license to practice. According to both courts he hasn't shown that.
I'm sorry, but last I checked not paying child support is not grounds for not being admitted to the bar. The issue at hand is of far greater importance, and that is wether or not a man guilty of 2 drug related murders is fit to rejoin society. If he is, then he should be able to persue the carreer he chooses. After all, he did his sentence, he paid his dues according to the state.
Not paying child support when it is court ordered in a divorce decree is illegal.
No paying child support IMO, is one of the lowest things you can do.
And dont give me well he doesnt have money business.
You got the time to MAKE the kid? You better MAN UP and take care of your responsibilities.
see, that's what I'm talking about. You obviously do not believe in rehabilitation if you think that way. If thats the case, I see your point. However, I would argue that if a man can rehabilitate, then he should not be released from prison.
Its not just about not being aloud to take the bar. Ex-convicts usually are hard pressed to find a decent job because of their background, no matter how much they've shown their desire to change and redeem themselves. Society as a whole, claims to believe in rehabilitation (hence parol for good behavior) and yet in reality it does not. Why release an inmate back into society if you're going fill his path to redemption with obstacles that will probably drive him or her back to crime.
Like I said, it all boils down to wether or not you believe in rehab.
Actually that's wrong according to the article...
And by not showing any interest whatsoever in paying child support until it benefitted him personally and professionally, that shows an incredible lack of good moral character. After all, the article stated he had been working as a paralegal. Why not make arrangements to make good on his debts then? Wouldn't that have been a way to show he was trying to turn his life around? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a second chance in life. Just maybe not in this profession. That's all.Chief Justice Ruth McGregor said the court has no rule automatically barring someone with Hamm's past from practicing law, but "an applicant with such a background must make an extraordinary showing of rehabilitation and present good moral character."
EDIT: Nevermind, I'm talking out of my ass, you're right I reread, the article, and I found the part that states that it WAS in fact, one of the reasons. Don't know why I missed it. It does strike me as odd though. oh well
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
