 
 
 | 
 |  |  |
 | | | | | TV as Crime Deterrent? | | | Our columnist asks whether a sentence of home detention without television is punishment — or paradise | |
| | | Nov. 4 — You may not realize how close this country came last week to the beginning of a massive crime wave. | |
| | | | | | |
THANKFULLY, A RASH OF low-level criminality the likes of which this country hasn’t seen since the Wild West has been avoided, thanks to the judicious jurisprudence at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Here’s how. In a little-watched, but hugely significant ruling, the Court threw out a lower-court’s decision to sentence a low-level career criminal to 10 months of home detention without television.
Imagine if the sentence had been allowed to stand. Imagine if word got out that a little shoplifting or simple fraud could earn you a few months at home without the incessant blare of “Access Hollywood,” the inane bluster of Bill O’Reilly and the ignoble bleat of “The Bachelor.” Finally, crime would indeed pay.
“If criminals thought that a television ban would be their only sentence, I am convinced it would open up the floodgates to all sorts of criminality,” said Eugene O’Donnell, a former prosecutor and cop who now teaches at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Many people who are currently law-abiding citizens would contemplate a life of crime.”
But not the convict in this particular case. In fact, the whole reason the case made it to the Court of Appeals at all is because the guilty party, one Edwin Bello of upstate New York, thought the original sentence was unduly harsh.
Here’s the backstory: Back in June, 2001, Bello pleaded guilty to a single count of credit card fraud. When the court finally got around to sentencing Bello in December, Judge Alvin Hellerstein hit him with the 10-month, TV-free home detention. The judge said he was forced into the sentence because Bello, despite a career of petty crimes dating back to 1959, had never done a single day in jail. Hellerstein explained that the TV ban was meant to give Bello the peace and quiet to reflect on the ways of his life and the harm that he has brought to his family. Without deprivation and self-reflection, the ruling continued, there would be considerably less chance that defendant will conquer the habit of recidivism that has marred his life.
But the TV ban seemed to come out of nowhere, so Bello, with two TV-loving teenage daughters and a wife who told the New York Times that TV was her “umbilical cord to life,” appealed. Mr. Bello could clearly go 10 months without television, said his lawyer Steven Statsinger. But his wife is quite ill and homebound. TV is her lifeline to the outside world. (As such, she is convinced that Rachel and Ross were meant for each other, that the Federation should really invest in a few more starships to deter a potential Romulan attack and that President Bartlett is doing a much better job ever since he decided to run for re-election).
A court-ordered ban on TV is almost entirely unheard of, even in home-detention sentences. Even Diana Brooks, the former CEO of Sotheby’s who was sentenced to six-months house arrest earlier this year, can watch all the “Wheel of Fortune” she wants (and, friends say, she wants it a lot). In fact, in all the annals of justice dating back to the days of Uncle Miltie, Bello’s lawyers could only point to one case in which a defendant was ordered to pay his debt to society by unplugging the boob tube; and in that case, the TV ban was mandated because the defendant had spray-painted “Charlie Manson” on some buildings after watching a TV documentary on the “Helter Skelter” wacko. In other words, TV was directly involved in the crime.
Bello argued that the TV ban was “not reasonably related to the nature and circumstance of the offense” and that “there is no nexus between the offense conducted (stealing credit cards from gym lockers) and television.” (Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing that Bello’s lawyers actually came up with that argument. From what I can tell, TV has robbed Bello of whatever creativity he might’ve had. According to court records, his aliases include the names “Jason Hink” and, to really confuse cops, “Jerome Hink.” Sounds like this guy should be watching more PBS and less WB)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And last week, the Court of Appeals agreed with him.
Because other amusements are available to him at home, there is no reason to assume that in the absence of televised entertainment he will tend to his conscience, the ruling stated. “He could [do] crosswords and jigsaw puzzles, not to mention light reading.” (The Court, somewhat condescendingly, apparently believes that heavy reading is beyond Edwin Bello.)
But the ruling did leave the window open for other judges to pull the plug — so long as the ban on TV is not simply for the purpose of promoting self-reflection. I read that to mean that if it’s strictly to satisfy society’s need to punish its worst offenders, a no-TV sentence could pass legal muster.
If so, it would not be difficult to envision an entirely new set of sentencing guidelines. Rather than rule out TV entirely, judges could simply bar access to certain shows. Petty theft? The defendant can watch all the “Big Brother” he wants, but is barred from watching “60 Minutes” for one month. Assault? No “Today” show for a year. Murder? Our most heinous crime deserves the stiffest punishment of all: No “Seinfeld” re-runs for 10-to-life.
Now that’s a punishment that would fit the crime.
Gersh Kuntzman is also a columnist for The New York Post and fan of light reading. His website is at www.gersh.tv
© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.
| | | |
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Newsweek Opinion Newsweek |
Perspectives
