Crosblog

I refer to campaign-ad star Willie Horton, whose name crops up every time a governor runs for President and finds his fingerprint on a vicious criminal who takes advantage of this or that loophole in a state criminal justice system to harm someone when they should have been in prison. Arguably we make too much of them, reducing a governor's record to a single instance of poor judgment, yet on the other hand, if issues of crime and punishment matter to you, they can serve as a microcosm of how the candidate views the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, or if you want to be harsh about it, compassion for the criminal vs. compassion for his victim. This occurs, not in the fact that a system allowed a killer a second chance to harm people, but in how the candidate deals with that knowledge afterwards.

First off, I should note that this, at first glance, doesn't look like a Horton issue. In what I've read, there is little to connect Mitt Romney to the case other than his appointment of the judge in question, and as serious a screwup as the judge made, if this is the only time that the phrases "boneheaded decision" and "Romney appointee" can be used in the same sentence, the race for my vote is over and the only question remaining is how much money do I send Romney? (Answer - probably not much, because my wife might feel compelled to donate a similar amount to John Edwards for balance, and I really couldn't live with that on my conscience.)

Mike Huckabee, however, has a Horton question Chuck Norris can't drive away - Wayne Dumond. Some background on Dumond here - and as psychos go, he's a doozy. The basics are Dumond raped a young lady, only to be caught when she recognized him on the street. Dumond, coincidentally, had a history as long as your arm, including sex crimes, and was convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison. Couple things you need to know - Dumond denied having anything to do with the rape, and, while out on bond, Dumond managed to get castrated. On the castration, Dumond claimed it was friends of a crooked sheriff who did it, it has also been claimed that Dumond was a freaking wackjob who did it to himself. And, finally, a distant relative of the victim went on to some political success, you may have heard of him - Bill Clinton.

The claim nowadays is that Dumond's case became a right-wing cause celebre because of the first and last two facts - Dumond's claim of innocence and the victim's relation to Clinton, who was governor at the time Dumond made a push for clemency. Under this theory - right-wingers developed the idea that Dumond was an innocent victim of the Clinton machine or whatever, who if they didn't frame him for rape, at least cut off his nuts. That being said, a detailed defense of Dumond can be found in the notoriously right-wing Village Voice. I've looked for a write-up about the trial itself, and can't find one, so I can't dispute the central claim that the primary evidence against Dumond was the identification. That forensic evidence existed has been both claimed and denied. Generally, when discussing crime issues, someone who leans left will point out the inherent unreliability in cases based almost exclusively on eyewitness testimony, especially when a witness is called upon to identify someone they're unfamiliar with. Even victims of violent crime, who have no interest in identifying anyone other than the correct perpetratorm, have been known to make this mistake. One would hate to think the lack of skepticism here has anything to do with the fact that this case can be an anchor around the neck of a rising Republican, but in these divided times...

Man, I'm rambling. Fast forward a little bit - Dumond's supporters have two claims - one, his allegedly suspect conviction, and two, the idea that "he's already suffered enough," what with the castration and all. Governor Jim Guy Tucker buys some portion of this, and reduces Dumond's sentence to the point where he would now be eligible for parole.

Now, (finally), enter Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's early statements suggest he was part of the Dumond might be innocent camp, as he announced his intent to free Dumond within a few months of taking office, citing “serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt.” Whether Huckabee had legitimate doubts or whether he just got some bad advice or drank the wrong Kool-Aid, he was not prepared for the PR backlash. The victim, Ashley Stevens, went public, demanding Huckabee keep Dumond in prison.

"I told [Huckabee]: If you ever let him out, he's going to do it again," she said in an interview.

She was able to get a meeting with the governor - who, she said, had not spoken to her before announcing his intention to commute Dumond's sentence - but realized Huckabee had "made up his mind." So Stevens stood up, she said, walked over to Huckabee, who was seated on a sofa, squatted down and thrust her face inches from his.

"I said, 'This is how close I was to Dumond's face for an hour,' " Stevens recalled. " 'I'll never forget his face, and you'll never forget mine.' "

Huckabee backed off slightly, and apparently only in public. Here's where it gets squirrelly. (At least, as it relates to Huckabee.) The Arkansas parole board had previously voted twice to keep Dumond in prison, most recently in September of 1996, but had a closed-door meeting with Gov. Huckabee in October about...well, that's kind of an open question. Huckabee claims not to remember everything that went on in the parole board meeting, but was sure he didn't pressure anyone to change their minds. Former parole board members, who depend on the governor for their appointments, claim that Huckabee made it abundantly clear he wanted Dumond released. In January of 1997, they did just that, voting to parole Dumond on the condition he leave the state. Huckabee denied an application for a pardon, which required Dumond to remain on parole and left the conviction on his record, but wrote Dumond a letter that left no doubt where he stood:

“Dear Wayne,” Huckabee wrote in a letter to Dumond. “My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place.”

It wasn't until 1999 that Dumond actually went free, owing to the problems of finding someone who would take him. He went free in October 1999. Less than one year later, Ashley Stevens prediction came true, and he murdered Carol Sue Shields of Parkville, MO, after sexually assaulting her. Carol Shields was 39. Dumond was also named as a suspect in another Missouri rape and murder, but never charged. Both Missouri crimes bore similarities to his crime in Arkansas, in case anyone still wants to doubt his guilt. Dumond was convicted of Carol Shields murder and sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2005, while authorities were still building their case for the rape and murder of Sarah Andrasek. Sarah Andrasek was 23, and had just learned that she and her husband were expecting their first child.

Now we get to today, where anyone who wants to piss off Mike Huckabee can do so by suggesting that any of this is his fault. According to him, fault lies first with Jim Guy Tucker for commuting the sentence to the point Dumond was even eligible for parole, then for reasons that can best be described as crack-addled - also naming Bill Clinton, for nominating the parole board members in the first place. Tucker certainly played a role and is fair game should he ever run for President (call that one a longshot), but blaming Clinton for releasing a family member's rapist? I'm willing to believe a fair amount of assholery where Bill Clinton's involved, but I've got to say he doesn't belong on the hook for this one, as he was two governors removed from having any power over the parole board, and, if anything, had been named by Dumond supporters as part of the conspiracy against him. Bill may flip-flop a lot, but that's a bit much.

Huckabee has played his way onto my short list of people I could support for President, but I have a problem with how he's handled this. The short version is, he screwed up, and two women died. Anyone who knew or cared about Carol Shields or Sue Andrasek has every right to hate Mike Huckabee with every fiber of their being, especially given his unwillingness to shoulder any responsibility. The Arkansas Times' excellent reporting makes it clear that Huckabee was instrumental in Dumond's release - left to their own devices, the parole board would likely have let Dumond rot. Huckabee could have acknowledged several things - his support for Dumond was likely based on him listening more to Dumond supporters than he did to Dumond's victim, and he could talk about his renewed committment to listen closer to what victims of crime have to say. He could talk honestly about his doubts about Dumond's guilt, and how his subsequent actions have led him to review issues more carefully before deciding, to prevent him from being misled by people with an agenda. Or he could talk about his desire to show Dumond mercy (the castration thing again), how his Christian faith led him to believe in mercy as a principle, and how he now more fully understands his obligation as a leader to balance mercy with a more reasoned, deeper consideration of whether or not mercy would put the public at risk. Any of these answers might have resonated, or they might not have, but they would have established that Huckabee is not running from his mistake, and the lessons two women died teaching. His preferred choice is the one politicians everywhere choose - blame the previous administration. Ducking responsiblity in the post-Bush era is going to be tempting enough without selecting a President who's already making a habit of it when a bad decision comes back to bite him in the ass.

The Dumond story won't go away - Democrats would love to "reverse Horton" a GOP candidate, and I can even see Republicans bringing it up if Huckabee starts to become a threat. (Particularly Republicans who built a reputation with crime-fighting.) And, if one wants to reduce it to vote counts - you can carve this in stone right now - if Mike Huckabee is the GOP nominee, there is no way in hell the Republicans win Missouri with this story out there.

If you have the ultimate responsibility for a criminal justice system, and you have any tendencies towards mercy or leniency, you're going to have a hand in setting someone free who goes on to do something terrible. It's that simple. You can just not cut anyone a break if you want, (politically speaking, it worked for George Bush), or you can try and pick the right cases. If you do, and you choose wrong, and you're right there to claim responsibility and to show those hurt by your mistake that you have learned something that will prevent others from suffering, while you might lose some support from the "no mercy ever" crowd, I think by and large the public will accept you.

Mike Huckabee's not a bad candidate, all in all. He's passed a fair amount of tests. But this one, he failed big-time, and he fails it over and over every time it comes up.

Which it will keep doing until election day, or until he drops out. Whichever comes first.