It doesn't seem
possible that it has been over
a year since I first told you
the story of Eddie
Guerrero. Time goes
quickly, especially as we grow
older, and perhaps this is
even true for Eddie.
Eddie is merely a year younger
than myself, and we often
commiserate with each other
concerning the aches and
pains, discomforts and other
foibles that go with
encroaching old age.
Lately it's been backaches and
a penchant we have both
developed for naps.
However, I'm sure it is
equally true that the prison
clocks must seem to run
considerably slower than those
on the outside, and I can only
imagine how long 46 years must
be to someone who has spent
every day off this time locked
up. The man who looks
back at me out of the mirror
is certainly a different
looking old codger than the
callow youth I was way back in
1971, and he is also a
significantly different
person. This is true for
Eddie as well, and it is a
point he's been trying to make
for the better part of the
last four decades. And
now he has his chance.
On November 9,
2017, at 11:00 am, at the G.
Robert Cotton Correctional
Facility in Jackson, Michigan,
Eddie Guerrero will be granted
the "Public Hearing for
possible parole" that he has
been waiting for since he was
sentenced to prison on July
31, 1972. He was, at
that time, still nearly a
month and a half shy of his
18th birthday. While
most young men of this age are
looking forward to finishing
high school, college, a
career, and raising a family,
Eddie was looking forward to
the much more daunting task of
enduring three concurrent life
sentences for forcible
rape. It's not that he
didn't have this coming, and
it's not to in any way
discount the serious and
heinous nature of the crimes
he committed, but it is, none
the less, the reality of
it. And, as grim as the
prospect of this reality was,
the actual reality turned out
to be even more daunting than
even Eddie imagined.
The life
sentences he received in 1972
were parolable and concurrent,
and this means exactly what it
sounds like it means: three
sentences to be served at once
and with the possibility, and
full expectation that, with
improvement, parole would be
forthcoming. At the time
of Eddie's conviction, the
first consideration of parole
became possible after 10 years
served, with subsequent
reviews and considerations
every five years thereafter,
providing the sentencing (or
successor) judge did not file
a written objection. The
judge's written objection
quashes the public hearing
that is necessary for parole
consideration to move forward
and the process stops.
For literally decades, each
review Eddie Guerrero received
was met with just such a
written objection until now,
46 years into an adult life
spent entirely behind bars, he
will receive his first public
hearing on November 9, 2017,
concerning crimes committed in
October of 1971. A life
sentence without
the possibility of parole is
reserved exclusively for those
"convicted of First-Degree
murder or placing explosives
with personal injury
resulting", yet for 46 years
Eddied has served a de
facto life sentence
without the possibility of
parole because some of those
damaged by his crimes willed
it, and a series of judges,
spanning generations, made it
so. [1]
In Dead
End on the Road Home I
made two basic points:
First of all is
that when it comes to "with
improvement" Eddie Guerrero is
nearly peerless within the
Michigan Department of
Corrections, at least in my
experience. I know two
other inmates who have
achieved and excelled in
turning their lives around and
serving others in a similar
way to what Eddie has done
and, interestingly enough,
both are serving mandatory
life sentences for
first-degree murder. I
have known maybe one or two
more men in whom the prison
experience awoke a deeper
inner character, and who may
well have been such "in house"
achievers, but who were
paroled to become exemplary
citizens in the "outside
world." Conversely, and
perhaps most interesting of
all, in the course of my
tenure as a jail chaplain, and
in over 10 years of ministry
relating to criminal justice,
I have met literally hundreds
of incarcerated men and only a
similar small number are those
who would be categorized as
true psychopaths or sociopaths
-- men with no conscience, who
act out in violence without
remorse, and who, in an
earlier day, we referred to as
the "criminally insane."
These are men who are
incapable of achieving the
improvement necessary for
release due to deep seated
flaws in their psychological
and/or spiritual make up.
Everyone else fits in
somewhere between these
extremes, and a topic for
another day would be the ways
in which we have, as a
society, failed to provide the
opportunity for these
individuals to succeed.
But this is not
about them, it is about Eddie
Guerrero, and the question his
case poses individually is
have we, as a society, failed
him by allowing him to spend
literally decades more time in
prison than was warranted by
his improvement? To ask
this question in no way
discounts the pain and
suffering he caused his
victims and their families,
which is certainly real,
intense, understandable, and
tragic. He'll be the
first to tell you this.
However, Eddie's situation
does call into question how
much catering to this pain, by
allowing victims to affect due
process within the criminal
justice system, contributes to
lifting the blindfold from the
eyes of Lady Justice in a way
our constitutional system
never intended -- in a way
that is damaging to all
involved rather than in a way
that contributes to the
healing of all. And that
was the second point I
made.
While Eddie's
individual case is, at long
last, about to be considered
in a public hearing on
November 9, he is not alone in
these circumstances, and he
will be the first to tell you
this as well. Anyone who
knows Eddie knows that the
argument he has made over
these many years concerning
his own lack of fair
consideration for parole is
one that he has not only made
on his own behalf, but on the
behalf of the many others who
find themselves in similar
circumstances, and who are
less vocal and articulate in
expressing their point of view
than he has been. Eddie
has never been afraid of
stepping on toes in expressing
his opinions freely and
openly, and this, in and of
itself, may have contributed
to additional and unnecessary
time served, even though it
demonstrates a strength of
character rather than a lack
of it.
Eddie's case, and
those others, and particularly
those cases involving youthful
offenders tried as adults and
given extensive sentences,
raise many questions for our
criminal justice system going
forward. In June, 2012,
the issue of juvenile
offenders convicted as adults
and sentenced to life without
the possibility of parole
gained national attention when
the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled this
practice unconstitutional, and
ordered that all such cases
must be reviewed.
Unaddressed by this ruling are
those like Eddie who were
given parolable life
sentences, or similar long
stretches as teens, that have
resulted in decades of time
served despite demonstrated
and significant
improvement. While it is
laudable that the Supreme
Court has opened the door to
review and consideration for
parole for youthful offenders
serving mandatory life, we
must not overlook others who
were sentenced as teens or
young adults, who have shown
improvement, and who are in
similar circumstances due to
sentencing guidelines and
corrections policies that
disregard "good behavior", and
which deny the possibility of
early release even though
individually merited, and
recommended, by the
professionals responsible for
making such
determinations. Some of
the questions that need to be
considered are these:
At what point
does punishment and personal
retribution give way to
rehabilitation and
restoration? When the
corrections process works and
corrections professionals can
demonstrate, and document, the
individual improvement they
are charged to produce, how
much weight should this carry
in determining release?
Eddie has been recommended for
parole by the Michigan
Department of Corrections
since 1983. If we are to
truly believe that justice has
been served since this time by
inflicting the pain of
incarceration in response to
the pain inflicted by his
crimes, at what point does
this come into balance?
When is enough, enough?
This hearing for Eddie will,
at long last, publicly pose
the question, "Is enough,
enough? Is 46 years served
sufficient punishment for the
heinous crimes of a 17 year
old?" Regardless of how
this question is answered for
Eddie, the question that
remains for the rest of us to
ponder is, based upon his
obvious, long standing,
impressive and well documented
improvement, should it have
been asked in a public hearing
prior to his enduring 46 years
in prison? And should
this have been done regardless
of the wishes of his most
vocal victim and her
family? If we allow the
emotions of individuals, even
those which are legitimate and
understandable, to influence
the courts to override
sentencing guidelines and the
recommendations of the
corrections professionals,
then when, and how, and should
the legal system step in and
determine, "Enough is
enough?"
During my years
as a chaplain and spiritual
director to men incarcerated,
my focus was never on the
rights and wrongs of the
criminal justice system, or
even on understanding the
motives and capriciousness
involved in the criminal acts
themselves. My point was
always to address the question
of how one moves on from here:
how does one take
responsibility, move forward,
endure the incarceration
process, benefit from it and
come home successfully?
Or, in the case of those
serving mandatory life
sentences, how does one build
a meaningful life when that
life is defined by confinement
unto death? And, while
my focus was always on the
perpetrators and their
recovery from crimes
committed, it became obvious,
and readily apparent, that
this is never truly
accomplished unless it can
also be achieved for the
victims of these crimes.
Especially
in crimes involving the death
of an individual, whether
through intent, negligence, or
accident, the universal
spiritual truth that quickly
becomes evident is that in
virtually all such cases,
there is a bond in which the
soul of the offender becomes
inextricably linked to the
soul of the victim. The
only real exception to this is
in those cases involving
individuals who are so
mentally or spiritually
disturbed that there is,
effectively, no conscience
involved and, as indicated
above, these cases are
relatively rare, and I never
considered myself trained,
qualified or able to benefit
these persons. I always
left them alone.
However, for many
other cases, the key to moving
forward and recovering in both
mind and spirit for the living
in this world is found in the
achievement of these same
goals for the soul of the
prematurely deceased in the
next. The teachings on
the afterlife contained in the
Catholic Faith speak
eloquently and effectively to
this phenomenon, and the
spiritual nature of this
teaching picks up neatly at
the limits of competent
psychological care. When
embraced in this way, through
faith, the individual who
deals with the act of causing
death at this higher level
achieves a spiritual health
that both complements and
completes his psychological
health. And this both
reflects, and is reflective
of, what is achieved in the
afterlife by the soul so
linked to him by the act of
death. At this point,
each soul is free to return to
its own path, and the healing
of each is complete. The
key to achieving this healthy
state of mind and soul is for
the perpetrator to come to
terms with his crime, take
responsibility for it, and
make the spiritual restitution
that is necessitated by being
unable to achieve this in the
physical world. It is a
very painful process but, once
achieved, there is no longer a
purpose to further
incarceration for these
individuals, and it serves
only as an ongoing punishment.
The question we must ask
ourselves at this point is
what good does such
unnecessary, and prohibitively
expensive, punishment
serve? How does it
benefit society, the
individual, or even those
traumatized and damaged by the
original act? And how do
we assist in the healing of
these individuals?
For these individuals, and for
the victims and loved ones
injured in the more numerous
crimes resulting in damage
less than death, the
restorative justice model,
when understood and applied
accordingly, competently, and
as defined professionally by
organizations such as the Centre
for Justice and
Reconciliation, achieves
largely the same results
within a more earthly and less
ethereal setting. [2] Set within a
Christian context that
recognizes that God's eternal
justice is always restorative
and inclusive in nature, it
seeks to translate human
justice into these divine
terms by recognizing and
addressing the pain and
suffering of all involved,
including the perpetrator,
and, in theory (and in my
experience), the healing of
victims is only truly and
fully accomplished when this
is also achieved. Any
psychological or spiritual
counselor who has gone through
remorse counseling with a
repentant offender knows how
real the pain is that violent
crime inflicts upon most of
those who commit it, and while
this is understandably less
understood and appreciated by
the general public, it is a
fact none the less, and an
important facet in the overall
healing of all involved.
Treating
the pain and suffering
involved in even such
horrific cases as Eddie's
through a more humane and
effective approach centered
in psychological and
spiritual counseling, and
which encompasses both
victim and offender, has
been proven more effective
than encouraging and
fostering an ongoing
vendetta through the
criminal justice
system. And while, due
to the extreme psychological
make up of some offenders
(and some victims), this
approach cannot be applied
in all cases, it is, none
the less, a vastly
underutilized tool that
could alleviate much pain
and suffering if it were
more broadly applied within
a criminal justice system
less intent on perpetuating
19th century social and
political attitudes, and
more intent on embracing
21st century knowledge and
experience.
Eddie
Guerrero was never a
psychopath, but he was a
severely disturbed, violent,
angry and immature 17 year
old child. The benefit
he received as a result of
his much needed, and much
deserved, incarceration was
a mental health achieved
through the psychological
treatment and counseling
provided by the experts and
professionals employed by
the Michigan Department of
Corrections, and a spiritual
health resulting from active
participation in Catholic
prison ministry, in
particularly a Cursillo
Weekend in 1981 that
he credits with turning his
life around "180
degrees". The evidence
of this change and turn
around in Eddie is seen in
his achievements in
education, a sterling prison
record, his personal service
to others, his support of
human justice issues, and in
his urging of the Catholic
Church, sometimes
stridently, to provide more
of the same kind of
meaningful programming he
credits with saving not only
his life, but his very
soul.
Those who have claimed
through the years that Eddie
Guerrero was, and is, some
kind of psychopathic
personality who has
staged, and sustained,
this hard earned and
miraculous turnaround in
his life solely to get
himself out of prison
have done so in a
vacuum, and with no
direct contact with
Eddie himself -- though
he has urged this direct
contact at every
opportunity through
qualified professionals
who do know him
personally and well, who
support the restorative
justice model, and who
know of the potential
healing benefit it holds
for all involved and
affected parties -- not
just Eddie. This claim is also
made not taking into account
the well documented (and
repeated) analyses of mental
health and other correctional
experts and administrators,
who have supported Eddie for
release on parole going all
the way back to 1983, and it
ignores the support Eddie has
received over the years from a
former Michigan governor,
Catholic Church officials and
clergy, and numerous other
knowledgeable and influential
persons who have lobbied on
his behalf. Perhaps most
significantly of all, it does
not take into account the
family support Eddie has
received throughout this
ordeal from parents and
siblings, all of whom
believed from the beginning
that, while the acts he
committed were monstrous,
Eddie himself was not a
monster. What he has
achieved over the past 46
years, and the fact that it
has, at last, brought him to
this long anticipated public
hearing, is vindication not
only of and for himself, but
for his father and mother, who
prayed for this day but did
not live to see it, and for
his brother and sisters, who
have done likewise and who
will be there on November 9,
2017 to see these prayers
finally answered.
As for Eddie,
should the prayers of all of
us who love and support him be
answered further and he is
granted his parole, you can
count on him to enjoy a good
home cooked meal, a nice hot
shower, and, after a good
night's sleep, be about the
task of urging restorative
justice for those who are in
the same kind of need he has
been in for all these many
years. This is not the
last we will hear of him, but
only the beginning. As for me, I'm
anxious to see what a man who
has experienced such a
profound healing, and who has
accomplished what he has in
prison, can do with a body,
heart and mind unshackled and
free at last to pursue the
dreams of a lifetime.
Anyone who would
like to express support for
Eddie at his hearing on
November 9, 2017 may do so in
writing to the Michigan Parole
Board at the following
address:
Parole Board
Michigan
Department of Corrections
P.O.Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909
Attention: Eddie Guerrero
#133491
End Notes:
1.
Life Imprisonment
- A mandatory term of life
imprisonment without the
possibility of parole must
be imposed if an offender is
convicted of First-Degree
Murder or placing explosives
with personal injury
resulting. As long as the
offender is serving a
mandatory life sentence, the
offender cannot be paroled
unless the sentence is
commuted or pardoned by the
governor. A second
type of life sentence, from
which a prisoner can be
paroled, may be imposed for
offenders convicted of life
offense crimes other than
Murder First or Placing
Explosives and for habitual
offenders. These cases are
commonly referred to as
"lifer law" cases. In such
instances, the Parole Board
can consider parole after
ten calendar years where the
offense occurred before Oct.
1, 1992, and if the
sentencing or successor
judge does not file written
objections. When the offense
occurred on or after Oct. 1,
1992, the board can consider
parole after 15 years if the
sentencing or successor
judge does not file written
objections. A public hearing
where victims and others can
present testimony for or
against parole is required
prior to parole
consideration. (See Drug
Lifer Law regarding parole
eligibility for prisoners
serving life under the drug
lifer law.)
http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,4551,7-119--17490--,00.html.
2.
Restorative Justice
is an approach to justice
that personalizes the crime
by having the victims and
the offenders mediate a
restitution agreement to the
satisfaction of each, as
well as involving the
community. This contrasts to
more punitive approaches
where the main aim is
retributive justice or to
satisfy abstract legal
principles.
Victims take an active role
in the process.
Meanwhile, offenders take
meaningful responsibility
for their actions, seizing
the opportunity to right
their wrongs and redeem
themselves, in their own
eyes and in the eyes of the
community. In
addition, the restorative
justice approach aims to
help the offender to avoid
future offenses. The
approach is based on a
theory of justice that
considers crime and
wrongdoing to be an offense
against an individual or
community, rather than the
State. Restorative
justice that fosters
dialogue between victim and
offender has shown the
highest rates of victim
satisfaction and offender
accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice.
|
