The comment in question was mine, so I will do my best to respond.
First off, an apology. I was attempting to make a broader point about the purpose of incarceration (rehabilitation, public safety, punishment) and in support of this point I was using details from your case. This is not fair, when you are not able to respond directly and put the details in context. I attempted to account for this at the end by stating my research was minimal and the details were up for debate, but that is not good enough. So for that, I apologize. I should have shown more care and used a hypothetical example.
As for your clarification of the details, what the prosecutor said was exactly my point. If you were that negligent with his life, then his death is not an accident. It is a murder. You didn’t intend for him to die, but you took zero care to ensure he would still be alive when it was all over. Along those same lines, if you give information to violent criminals that they use to rob, pistol whip, and beat someone, then you are responsible. Thats why you were treated as if you had done it yourself. As for the length of your sentence in comparison to those who acted on your information and carried out the robbery, that seems unjust.
I agree that in your case, debating with naysayers would be counterproductive, but you are not just presenting the facts and letting the ill-informed argue. You are presenting the facts, along with your interpretation of the facts, and a value judgement in support of your desired outcome. But that’s ok. This is not statistics so facts are not enough. We have to do the dirty work of putting these facts into a moral context. Saying - I committed these crimes, I am deeply remorseful, and I have now committed my life to bettering myself and the community, is the most someone in your position can do. What else is there? You can’t bring a man back to life.
Forgiveness is a beautiful thing for both the giver and receiver. The fact that his mother has forgiven you would carry significant weight if I was the one making the decision. As far as my personal feelings go and what I know of your case, I would support your release. Let you get to work making a difference. You don’t seem to be a danger to society and if the victims mother forgives you , who am I to demand more punishment.
My grandfather, who lived with my family for the first 10 years of my life and who I loved dearly, was convicted of robbery and murder when he was in his mid twenties. He was driving and did not pull the trigger, but was given 25 to life, to be served in San Quentin. He was released (due to some interesting circumstances involving his service in WWII) and then went on to live a good and peaceful life. My mother was born after his release, so I, and now my two daughters, are the result of 2nd chances. I personally wish you the best and look forward to hearing an update when you are out here following through on your plan to make the world a little better.
No apology necessary, in fact, I think that a thank you is in order for that admonishment that was filled with thoughtful insight. Thank you, and I will hold on to that. You thoughts about care, and the enabling of others landed with me. Thank you, peace, and God bless you and yours. - Johnny Pippins
Mr. Pippins is a criminal who writes well and is extremely manipulative in an attempt to garner sympathy and support for his early release. He was involved in a horrific crime and his behavior and actions were despicable. Of course he wants to get out of prison early, who wouldn’t, but he deserves to serve his entire sentence.
Mr. Pippins is no doubt a victim. He is clearly a victim of his own poor choices in life. No one forced him to act in this way. It was his choice under his own inappropriately perceived duress. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. I’ve been there in my own life. I still suffer the consequences on my poor choices from 25 years ago today. I have no one to blame but myself.
Get forgiveness of the family you violated. You have changed the course of their lives in a way they didn’t deserve. And you also drastically changed the course of your own. Tell your story to the family. If they forgive you, then the state should. But if the state convicted you on behalf of their citizens, then that’s on you man. It’s a tough lesson. You gambled poorly.
Everyone deserves a path to redemption. Those quick to condemn others to a life of solitude and confinement- especially those such as Johnny that so flatly and candidly accept their crime and the punishment thereof, are missing something. They’re missing what these earnest yet deeply fallible souls might have to offer those that are on or near the same life trajectory. They’re missing the fact that there is a difference between someone that doubles down on what the world has done to them and what they have done, vs someone like Johnny that genuinely and honestly seeks redemption. And they’re missing the fact that some people are redeemable and can help society improve. Yes, absolutely, if someone commits a heinous crime and is remorseless, they leave the rest of us little choice but condemnation, lest someone else suffer at their hands. However, if Johnny is even a fraction as penitent as he sounds, imagine all the good his story could do for people that are in similar circumstances that led to his incarceration, let alone the incarcerated that are truly remorseful and want to use what they’ve learned to help others that have transgressed from righteous paths. Lastly- bitterness and hatred will eat you alive. Johnny is worthy of at least a chance in my estimation- and I do so hope that he gets it.
Having grown up in a getto in Los Angeles the needle on my compassion meter usually doesn't move that much... That said, your words are solid and you have my prayers for success...
I think the parole board has all the facts and all the information they need to make a judgment, and in their judgment they don’t want to parole him him.
I suspect the parole board has good reason to not want him released early: those reasons are probably also very compelling.
His campaign for early release does make a compelling case at first blush. That is the power of narrative.
Why do you side with the criminal rather than the people?
The parole board acts on behalf of the people, and I support their decision in this case.
Let Mr. Pippins serve out the remaining three years on his sentence.
Admittedly, I've only heard one side of the story, which why I said it "sounds like" he's deserving of a second chance. I'm a lawyer, I don't practice criminal law, but I've been close enough to the legal system to know that there are many, many cases of injustice all through it. That doesn't mean that I don't 100% support law and order, and in general stand behind the police and the need to punish, deter and detain criminals, but I also have zero problem believing that the system operates unjustlyin certain instances. This seems to be one of those instances.
You are claiming that the system worked unjustly in Mr. Pippins case. At least, it seems so to you. And that is admittedly without knowing the story.
Unjust in what way, legal or moral? You may be able to make a case for moral, in a stretch, but there is no case for this being legally unjust. He has received due process under the law.
Why don’t you dig into the details of his crimes and what he’s gone through to organize an early release and then comment back here.
Seems a bit of a high evidentiary standard in order to leave a comment on a website, no? According to him (again, all I have to go off, and no I'm not going to do my own separate research on the case, my opinion on it doesn't mean anything), the others who were as or in fact more responsible for this crime served 3-7 years, apparently because they accepted a plea bargain rather than go to trail. Does he deserve 4-10 times as much time because of his decision to go to trial? What kind of counsel did he have that advised him to do so? I personally have a general problem with the reliance of the criminal justice system on plea bargains, it converts public defenders and prosecutors into judges and juries. But no, I don't have all of the facts, maybe I'm wrong, it's just a comment on a web site. If I were on the parole board I would take the fact-finding process a lot more seriously.
Thanks for sharing Dr Loury. We call it the penitentiary because we want people to become penitent. Our goal should be rehabilitation not vengeance or a pound of flesh at least not in whole. In my humble opinion I hope this man gets out soon so he can contribute to society since he seems to have so much to contribute.
Have you investigated the story behind this man’s transgressions? They are treacherous and horrifying. Let someone kidnap and murder your family member and see how they feel. Familiarize yourself with the case before having an opinion.
“The story of Pippins' misdeeds began with a quest for drugs and money. In the evening hours of August 1, 1996, Janeen McKenzie ("McKenzie") heard a knock on her door. When she opened the door, she was knocked to the ground, struck, and held down while a number of people searched her apartment. Not finding the sum of money and drugs they were looking for, they gagged McKenzie, forcibly placed her into a car and took her to the home of Jermaine Campbell ("Campbell"). The captors compelled McKenzie to knock on Campbell's door. When Campbell opened the door, McKenzie tried to signal him and Campbell slammed his door shut. McKenzie fled down the street, heard a gun shot, and contacted police. Campbell was not so fortunate; he was shot in the chest and died from that wound.
The facts set forth here are taken form the unchallenged recitation contained in the Illinois Court of Appeals' orders.
Pippins' involvement in these crimes was deduced from various sources and forensic evidence. Police lifted the fingerprints of William Pippins from McKenzie's apartment. William Pippins is Petitioner's brother. A witness described the getaway car, a candy apple red car with Illinois plates. Police also found spent shell casings, a Ruger P89 handgun, two bandannas (one of which contained DNA that did not belong to Campbell), and other items at Campbell's house. Two bullets recovered from Campbell's house and from Campbell were fired from the same .380 High Point gun.”
I agree it’s horrific. He is however eligible for parole. That’s part of his sentence. So the parole board should consider him according to the rules. And then make a decision considering all of the facts and circumstances. But his sentence was not “without possibility of parole “. So he should be considered. You’re right we don’t know all the facts. The parole board has that job. Not us.
Hmmm! The more I see the court transcripts, the more I read about Mr. Pippins case, the more disturbed I become. Mr. Pippins is not a person I would get behind to be paroled before he completes his sentence.
Mr. Pippins has every right to apply for parole and have a hearing. But it seems like the filings they presented implied a travesty of justice occurred in the legal system and that’s what put Mr. Pippins in this situation.
Looking for loopholes, looking for malfeasance from the state, trying to pounce on every little scrap of legalese they can hang their hat on to portray him as a victim.
Does Mr. Pippins himself, or his surrogates, characterize Mr. Pippins as a victim?
Victim of what?
Are you a victim, Mr. Pippins. Were you railroaded and suffered a travesty of justice. If so, go ahead and claim victimhood.
I advise you to serve out the remaining three years of your sentence.
But I’m done with this case. It makes me feel disgusted, and I would never advocate for Mr. Pippins parole.
I thank Dr. Loury for putting this out there in his newsletter without putting his finger on the scale.
Mr. Pippins’ case is a good case in which to practice critical thinking skills and learn about the power of narrative.
The narrative made by Mr. Pippins team is compelling but it is nowhere related to the truth of the case: when you go back and review the actual crime and the court proceedings you come away with your mind changed.
Forgiveness is a great thing: I forgive Mr. Pippins, the mother of the man he betrayed and killed forgives Mr. Pippins, let’s all forgive Mr Pippins. He does sound repentant.
Mr. Pippins is also probably feeling some anger and frustration that he can’t, despite all his machinations, all the money that was sent his way for legal fees, all the pro bono isms, all failed to secure the early release that he so desperately desires.
I get angry too, when I hear the word ”No” after putting a lot of effort into my presentation. But I accept it and move on.
Mr. Pippin‘s case, in my opinion, is not worth the concern of anyone outside of the case itself. It’s not even worth dwelling on to become engaged in his machinations.
They committed a dirty deed done for drugs and money and then they all snitched and ratted on each other in order to get the best trial / prison outcome they could.
Mr. Pippins has never stop trying to get the best prison outcome he can.
He thinks he’s still gaming the system and that he will continue to game the system until he gets an early release for some reason instead of serving out the short remaining time on his sentence.
Mr. Pippins should apologize to anyone he roped into his orbit by his false narrative that his is a just cause for you, or I, or anyone to get involved with.
Mr. Pippins plea for early release is not a just cause for anyone outside of his personal orbit.
To give him victimhood status, that would be abominable.
I think he’s had his chance to plead his case, and now I don’t want to hear anymore from Mr. Pippins.
If you want to know why simply read the court transcripts and the details of the crimes and all the machinations done by Mr. Pippins to weasel out of the sentence he received.
When I think of Mr. Pippins, I don’t think of him as he is today, I think of him as Johnny Pippins as he was planning his friends robbery which ended up in his friends murder, and it was not a one-off by any stretch of the imagination.
Johnny Pippins was a hardened criminal at the time he helped commit the murder. Criminality was his career choice.
Now when I think of Mr. Pippins I think of a murderer and a career criminal who was imprisoned and earned a college degree while in prison and is using that status to secure an early release.
The parole board has access to Mr. Pippins records and achievements while in prison as well as any disciplinary record, and they should be reviewing all the legal filings that he has done since being in prison as well as the original court records and description of the crimes. Based on that information I believe the parole board (based on their legal guidelines) is justified in denying Mr. Pippins parole.
He’s claiming victimhood because he has not been paroled although due process has taken its course. He is eligible for all, but he believes he deserves parole, and the parole board thinks differently. That’s due process he may be claiming to be a victim of due process I don’t know but he’s coming off as a victim here.
Btw, my post was cut off in the middle. I don’t know why: must be a computer snafu, but I adequately expanded on my reasoning. Mr. Pippins is at least claiming to be a victim of an unfair parole board.
That’s why he’s appealing to Dr. Loury and to others, even people in this newsletter, who may have a knee-jerk reaction to a travesty of justice. Based on what they don’t know about the case.
I am reminded of the two thieves who were executed withe Jesus. Both entirely deserving of their fate. One mocks Jesus for not using his “powers” to save himself. The other owns up to his crimes and recognizes the complete innocence of Jesus and asks his forgiveness and acceptance. And he is given the promise of Paradise as they were dying. Sometimes I think the fate of the “good” thief is what every believer hopes for. Maybe that’s Johnny. I do pray for that for him.
What is that, Thomas? What do you think Mr. Pippins has to contribute to black inner-city youth that many former convicts are not already doing.
I don’t get it: I don’t get what you think he can contribute. Please elaborate.
My guess is that he would be picked up as a board member or an activist by some non-prophet organization that’s taking money from the government. To be revered as a celebrity victim and collecting a nice salary for the rest of his life. Again at the taxpayers expense. Why would anyone advocate for that outcome?
I think it’s better he serve out his sentence: it’s only three more years.
I intended intercity. All that you suggest is a remote possibility, I’m no bleeding heart. However, with his education pedigree, he may be able to promulgate first principles.
So you worship at the altar of the PHD? Is it all about his education for you?
I missed what his degrees are in: are you claiming he has a degree in education and will use that degree upon his release?
Do you think he will be certified as a teacher?
What I drew out was the likely scenario for him if he gains early release or if he serves out his sentence. He will be welcomed by elites because he has achieved elite status in the education department.
Ain’t that a shame.
What he will contribute, if anything, is way, way up in the air. Pure speculation that he will ever contribute anything to the society other than what he already has contributed.
Can we let the Parole board do its job and make its decision under the law?
The man contributed to the kidnapping and murder of an old lady. Do you fundamentally disagree that this is a very terrible thing that should be punished to the full extent of the law? This man engaged in that crime, pal. Will you forgive me if I assassinate your family members and let me go free? Ooopps, it was an accident, society hurt me, I am incapable of being responsible for my own life…
"Do you fundamentally disagree that this is a very terrible thing that should be punished to the full extent of the law?"
You're making this into a simple fight of good versus evil, but respectfully that's kinda myopic. We all get the concept of an eye for an eye. It's a very natural instinct. It even feels good on some level. But as for society? I'm not certain that's all that matters.
Sometimes, not always, life is more complicated, particularly when society has to consider what's best in the long run, and ultimately that is what this is about.
I am not 100% certain that I would "never ever ever" forgive someone for bringing harm to my family--it really depends. A lot can happen in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, such that yes, there just might be that rare exception that pops up at some point. The emergence of new facts and realities can play a role in shaping both public *and* personal opinion. Frankly ,I don't see anything morally superior about sticking to the rules no matter what.
If we could wind the clock back to 1900 to have a conversation about reparations for the descendants of Slavery, might that conversation sound a little different from the one we would have today? What if we could go back to 1970 for a chat about reparations for the living victims of Jim Crow? Wouldn't that conversation sound different from the one we might have today? I suspect they would, simply because (sometimes) times and circumstances change our points of view.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Johnny said that the victim's mom or some family member eventually offered some kind of forgiveness to him. If that's true, who am I to say hell no?
Looks like we fundamentally disagree in the end, Lisa. I don't doubt that you understand Glenn. That said, in this particular case, I think Glenn sees this as something beyond his compassionate heart. In other words, could this case also be about the practicality of a system and/or the greater good?
Is it best, societally, that a man like Johnny die in prison at 80-something because he f'd up as a young man? I'm not so sure, but my gut tells me no. My gut tells me such a man could very likely contribute to society at this point; maybe even significantly.
But who knows? My gut's been right *and* wrong in the past.
Keep him in jail or if allowed out on parole, keep him with his fellow savages.
I pray you are released and have the ability to make a positive difference. Best to you.
I hope you get a second chance. All the best. Eva xxx
The comment in question was mine, so I will do my best to respond.
First off, an apology. I was attempting to make a broader point about the purpose of incarceration (rehabilitation, public safety, punishment) and in support of this point I was using details from your case. This is not fair, when you are not able to respond directly and put the details in context. I attempted to account for this at the end by stating my research was minimal and the details were up for debate, but that is not good enough. So for that, I apologize. I should have shown more care and used a hypothetical example.
As for your clarification of the details, what the prosecutor said was exactly my point. If you were that negligent with his life, then his death is not an accident. It is a murder. You didn’t intend for him to die, but you took zero care to ensure he would still be alive when it was all over. Along those same lines, if you give information to violent criminals that they use to rob, pistol whip, and beat someone, then you are responsible. Thats why you were treated as if you had done it yourself. As for the length of your sentence in comparison to those who acted on your information and carried out the robbery, that seems unjust.
I agree that in your case, debating with naysayers would be counterproductive, but you are not just presenting the facts and letting the ill-informed argue. You are presenting the facts, along with your interpretation of the facts, and a value judgement in support of your desired outcome. But that’s ok. This is not statistics so facts are not enough. We have to do the dirty work of putting these facts into a moral context. Saying - I committed these crimes, I am deeply remorseful, and I have now committed my life to bettering myself and the community, is the most someone in your position can do. What else is there? You can’t bring a man back to life.
Forgiveness is a beautiful thing for both the giver and receiver. The fact that his mother has forgiven you would carry significant weight if I was the one making the decision. As far as my personal feelings go and what I know of your case, I would support your release. Let you get to work making a difference. You don’t seem to be a danger to society and if the victims mother forgives you , who am I to demand more punishment.
My grandfather, who lived with my family for the first 10 years of my life and who I loved dearly, was convicted of robbery and murder when he was in his mid twenties. He was driving and did not pull the trigger, but was given 25 to life, to be served in San Quentin. He was released (due to some interesting circumstances involving his service in WWII) and then went on to live a good and peaceful life. My mother was born after his release, so I, and now my two daughters, are the result of 2nd chances. I personally wish you the best and look forward to hearing an update when you are out here following through on your plan to make the world a little better.
Steve,
No apology necessary, in fact, I think that a thank you is in order for that admonishment that was filled with thoughtful insight. Thank you, and I will hold on to that. You thoughts about care, and the enabling of others landed with me. Thank you, peace, and God bless you and yours. - Johnny Pippins
Is it possible to correspond with Mr Pippins directly?
Mr. Pippins is a criminal who writes well and is extremely manipulative in an attempt to garner sympathy and support for his early release. He was involved in a horrific crime and his behavior and actions were despicable. Of course he wants to get out of prison early, who wouldn’t, but he deserves to serve his entire sentence.
Mr. Pippins is no doubt a victim. He is clearly a victim of his own poor choices in life. No one forced him to act in this way. It was his choice under his own inappropriately perceived duress. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. I’ve been there in my own life. I still suffer the consequences on my poor choices from 25 years ago today. I have no one to blame but myself.
Get forgiveness of the family you violated. You have changed the course of their lives in a way they didn’t deserve. And you also drastically changed the course of your own. Tell your story to the family. If they forgive you, then the state should. But if the state convicted you on behalf of their citizens, then that’s on you man. It’s a tough lesson. You gambled poorly.
Everyone deserves a path to redemption. Those quick to condemn others to a life of solitude and confinement- especially those such as Johnny that so flatly and candidly accept their crime and the punishment thereof, are missing something. They’re missing what these earnest yet deeply fallible souls might have to offer those that are on or near the same life trajectory. They’re missing the fact that there is a difference between someone that doubles down on what the world has done to them and what they have done, vs someone like Johnny that genuinely and honestly seeks redemption. And they’re missing the fact that some people are redeemable and can help society improve. Yes, absolutely, if someone commits a heinous crime and is remorseless, they leave the rest of us little choice but condemnation, lest someone else suffer at their hands. However, if Johnny is even a fraction as penitent as he sounds, imagine all the good his story could do for people that are in similar circumstances that led to his incarceration, let alone the incarcerated that are truly remorseful and want to use what they’ve learned to help others that have transgressed from righteous paths. Lastly- bitterness and hatred will eat you alive. Johnny is worthy of at least a chance in my estimation- and I do so hope that he gets it.
Having grown up in a getto in Los Angeles the needle on my compassion meter usually doesn't move that much... That said, your words are solid and you have my prayers for success...
I really hope that this happens for you. You sound entirely deserving of a genuine second chance.
I think the parole board has all the facts and all the information they need to make a judgment, and in their judgment they don’t want to parole him him.
I suspect the parole board has good reason to not want him released early: those reasons are probably also very compelling.
His campaign for early release does make a compelling case at first blush. That is the power of narrative.
Why do you side with the criminal rather than the people?
The parole board acts on behalf of the people, and I support their decision in this case.
Let Mr. Pippins serve out the remaining three years on his sentence.
Admittedly, I've only heard one side of the story, which why I said it "sounds like" he's deserving of a second chance. I'm a lawyer, I don't practice criminal law, but I've been close enough to the legal system to know that there are many, many cases of injustice all through it. That doesn't mean that I don't 100% support law and order, and in general stand behind the police and the need to punish, deter and detain criminals, but I also have zero problem believing that the system operates unjustlyin certain instances. This seems to be one of those instances.
You are claiming that the system worked unjustly in Mr. Pippins case. At least, it seems so to you. And that is admittedly without knowing the story.
Unjust in what way, legal or moral? You may be able to make a case for moral, in a stretch, but there is no case for this being legally unjust. He has received due process under the law.
Why don’t you dig into the details of his crimes and what he’s gone through to organize an early release and then comment back here.
Then your, “it seems” would carry more weight.
Seems a bit of a high evidentiary standard in order to leave a comment on a website, no? According to him (again, all I have to go off, and no I'm not going to do my own separate research on the case, my opinion on it doesn't mean anything), the others who were as or in fact more responsible for this crime served 3-7 years, apparently because they accepted a plea bargain rather than go to trail. Does he deserve 4-10 times as much time because of his decision to go to trial? What kind of counsel did he have that advised him to do so? I personally have a general problem with the reliance of the criminal justice system on plea bargains, it converts public defenders and prosecutors into judges and juries. But no, I don't have all of the facts, maybe I'm wrong, it's just a comment on a web site. If I were on the parole board I would take the fact-finding process a lot more seriously.
Thanks for sharing Dr Loury. We call it the penitentiary because we want people to become penitent. Our goal should be rehabilitation not vengeance or a pound of flesh at least not in whole. In my humble opinion I hope this man gets out soon so he can contribute to society since he seems to have so much to contribute.
Have you investigated the story behind this man’s transgressions? They are treacherous and horrifying. Let someone kidnap and murder your family member and see how they feel. Familiarize yourself with the case before having an opinion.
“The story of Pippins' misdeeds began with a quest for drugs and money. In the evening hours of August 1, 1996, Janeen McKenzie ("McKenzie") heard a knock on her door. When she opened the door, she was knocked to the ground, struck, and held down while a number of people searched her apartment. Not finding the sum of money and drugs they were looking for, they gagged McKenzie, forcibly placed her into a car and took her to the home of Jermaine Campbell ("Campbell"). The captors compelled McKenzie to knock on Campbell's door. When Campbell opened the door, McKenzie tried to signal him and Campbell slammed his door shut. McKenzie fled down the street, heard a gun shot, and contacted police. Campbell was not so fortunate; he was shot in the chest and died from that wound.
The facts set forth here are taken form the unchallenged recitation contained in the Illinois Court of Appeals' orders.
Pippins' involvement in these crimes was deduced from various sources and forensic evidence. Police lifted the fingerprints of William Pippins from McKenzie's apartment. William Pippins is Petitioner's brother. A witness described the getaway car, a candy apple red car with Illinois plates. Police also found spent shell casings, a Ruger P89 handgun, two bandannas (one of which contained DNA that did not belong to Campbell), and other items at Campbell's house. Two bullets recovered from Campbell's house and from Campbell were fired from the same .380 High Point gun.”
https://casetext.com/case/pippins-v-burt-2
I agree it’s horrific. He is however eligible for parole. That’s part of his sentence. So the parole board should consider him according to the rules. And then make a decision considering all of the facts and circumstances. But his sentence was not “without possibility of parole “. So he should be considered. You’re right we don’t know all the facts. The parole board has that job. Not us.
Hmmm! The more I see the court transcripts, the more I read about Mr. Pippins case, the more disturbed I become. Mr. Pippins is not a person I would get behind to be paroled before he completes his sentence.
Mr. Pippins has every right to apply for parole and have a hearing. But it seems like the filings they presented implied a travesty of justice occurred in the legal system and that’s what put Mr. Pippins in this situation.
Looking for loopholes, looking for malfeasance from the state, trying to pounce on every little scrap of legalese they can hang their hat on to portray him as a victim.
Does Mr. Pippins himself, or his surrogates, characterize Mr. Pippins as a victim?
Victim of what?
Are you a victim, Mr. Pippins. Were you railroaded and suffered a travesty of justice. If so, go ahead and claim victimhood.
I advise you to serve out the remaining three years of your sentence.
But I’m done with this case. It makes me feel disgusted, and I would never advocate for Mr. Pippins parole.
I thank Dr. Loury for putting this out there in his newsletter without putting his finger on the scale.
Mr. Pippins’ case is a good case in which to practice critical thinking skills and learn about the power of narrative.
The narrative made by Mr. Pippins team is compelling but it is nowhere related to the truth of the case: when you go back and review the actual crime and the court proceedings you come away with your mind changed.
Forgiveness is a great thing: I forgive Mr. Pippins, the mother of the man he betrayed and killed forgives Mr. Pippins, let’s all forgive Mr Pippins. He does sound repentant.
Mr. Pippins is also probably feeling some anger and frustration that he can’t, despite all his machinations, all the money that was sent his way for legal fees, all the pro bono isms, all failed to secure the early release that he so desperately desires.
I get angry too, when I hear the word ”No” after putting a lot of effort into my presentation. But I accept it and move on.
Mr. Pippin‘s case, in my opinion, is not worth the concern of anyone outside of the case itself. It’s not even worth dwelling on to become engaged in his machinations.
They committed a dirty deed done for drugs and money and then they all snitched and ratted on each other in order to get the best trial / prison outcome they could.
Mr. Pippins has never stop trying to get the best prison outcome he can.
He thinks he’s still gaming the system and that he will continue to game the system until he gets an early release for some reason instead of serving out the short remaining time on his sentence.
Mr. Pippins should apologize to anyone he roped into his orbit by his false narrative that his is a just cause for you, or I, or anyone to get involved with.
Mr. Pippins plea for early release is not a just cause for anyone outside of his personal orbit.
To give him victimhood status, that would be abominable.
I think he’s had his chance to plead his case, and now I don’t want to hear anymore from Mr. Pippins.
If you want to know why simply read the court transcripts and the details of the crimes and all the machinations done by Mr. Pippins to weasel out of the sentence he received.
When I think of Mr. Pippins, I don’t think of him as he is today, I think of him as Johnny Pippins as he was planning his friends robbery which ended up in his friends murder, and it was not a one-off by any stretch of the imagination.
Johnny Pippins was a hardened criminal at the time he helped commit the murder. Criminality was his career choice.
Now when I think of Mr. Pippins I think of a murderer and a career criminal who was imprisoned and earned a college degree while in prison and is using that status to secure an early release.
The parole board has access to Mr. Pippins records and achievements while in prison as well as any disciplinary record, and they should be reviewing all the legal filings that he has done since being in prison as well as the original court records and description of the crimes. Based on that information I believe the parole board (based on their legal guidelines) is justified in denying Mr. Pippins parole.
Nice try, no banana, Johnny.
I’m on to San Francisco.
Where do get this idea that he is claiming victim hood? Can you give me a link?
The link is right here, Andrew.
He’s claiming victimhood because he has not been paroled although due process has taken its course. He is eligible for all, but he believes he deserves parole, and the parole board thinks differently. That’s due process he may be claiming to be a victim of due process I don’t know but he’s coming off as a victim here.
Btw, my post was cut off in the middle. I don’t know why: must be a computer snafu, but I adequately expanded on my reasoning. Mr. Pippins is at least claiming to be a victim of an unfair parole board.
That’s why he’s appealing to Dr. Loury and to others, even people in this newsletter, who may have a knee-jerk reaction to a travesty of justice. Based on what they don’t know about the case.
"We call it the penitentiary because we want people to become penitent."
I have never heard that one before; or even thought about it. Thanks.
I am reminded of the two thieves who were executed withe Jesus. Both entirely deserving of their fate. One mocks Jesus for not using his “powers” to save himself. The other owns up to his crimes and recognizes the complete innocence of Jesus and asks his forgiveness and acceptance. And he is given the promise of Paradise as they were dying. Sometimes I think the fate of the “good” thief is what every believer hopes for. Maybe that’s Johnny. I do pray for that for him.
Johnny, you have much to contribute to black intercity youth. Let us pray you will share it soon!
What is that, Thomas? What do you think Mr. Pippins has to contribute to black inner-city youth that many former convicts are not already doing.
I don’t get it: I don’t get what you think he can contribute. Please elaborate.
My guess is that he would be picked up as a board member or an activist by some non-prophet organization that’s taking money from the government. To be revered as a celebrity victim and collecting a nice salary for the rest of his life. Again at the taxpayers expense. Why would anyone advocate for that outcome?
I think it’s better he serve out his sentence: it’s only three more years.
I intended intercity. All that you suggest is a remote possibility, I’m no bleeding heart. However, with his education pedigree, he may be able to promulgate first principles.
So you worship at the altar of the PHD? Is it all about his education for you?
I missed what his degrees are in: are you claiming he has a degree in education and will use that degree upon his release?
Do you think he will be certified as a teacher?
What I drew out was the likely scenario for him if he gains early release or if he serves out his sentence. He will be welcomed by elites because he has achieved elite status in the education department.
Ain’t that a shame.
What he will contribute, if anything, is way, way up in the air. Pure speculation that he will ever contribute anything to the society other than what he already has contributed.
Can we let the Parole board do its job and make its decision under the law?
Ok, you win, fire up ‘ok sparky!
Awesome stuff. People who don't get Glenn will never get this, but that's perfectly alright.
The man contributed to the kidnapping and murder of an old lady. Do you fundamentally disagree that this is a very terrible thing that should be punished to the full extent of the law? This man engaged in that crime, pal. Will you forgive me if I assassinate your family members and let me go free? Ooopps, it was an accident, society hurt me, I am incapable of being responsible for my own life…
"Do you fundamentally disagree that this is a very terrible thing that should be punished to the full extent of the law?"
You're making this into a simple fight of good versus evil, but respectfully that's kinda myopic. We all get the concept of an eye for an eye. It's a very natural instinct. It even feels good on some level. But as for society? I'm not certain that's all that matters.
Sometimes, not always, life is more complicated, particularly when society has to consider what's best in the long run, and ultimately that is what this is about.
I am not 100% certain that I would "never ever ever" forgive someone for bringing harm to my family--it really depends. A lot can happen in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, such that yes, there just might be that rare exception that pops up at some point. The emergence of new facts and realities can play a role in shaping both public *and* personal opinion. Frankly ,I don't see anything morally superior about sticking to the rules no matter what.
If we could wind the clock back to 1900 to have a conversation about reparations for the descendants of Slavery, might that conversation sound a little different from the one we would have today? What if we could go back to 1970 for a chat about reparations for the living victims of Jim Crow? Wouldn't that conversation sound different from the one we might have today? I suspect they would, simply because (sometimes) times and circumstances change our points of view.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Johnny said that the victim's mom or some family member eventually offered some kind of forgiveness to him. If that's true, who am I to say hell no?
He didn’t kidnap or murder any old lady. What are you talking about?
Looks like we fundamentally disagree in the end, Lisa. I don't doubt that you understand Glenn. That said, in this particular case, I think Glenn sees this as something beyond his compassionate heart. In other words, could this case also be about the practicality of a system and/or the greater good?
Is it best, societally, that a man like Johnny die in prison at 80-something because he f'd up as a young man? I'm not so sure, but my gut tells me no. My gut tells me such a man could very likely contribute to society at this point; maybe even significantly.
But who knows? My gut's been right *and* wrong in the past.