Bruce Reilly is a first-year law student who received a scholarship from Tulane University and the NAACP to achieve his dream of becoming an attorney. Bruce's love of the law blossomed after working in his community as an activist helping those that were marginalized. Before this he served 12 years in prison for committing the biggest mistake in his life when he took someone's life. For the crime he committed a life-time ago, he is now going through the ringer because of the stigma brought on by carrying the "scarlet letter" of being an ex-offender. It made me think if someone could ever move on from their past and was there a crime you could commit that you cannot be forgiven for?
Bruce, a nice guy and well-known activist in the field of criminal justice reform, had been dealing with the whispers of his past, but the shit hit the fan when an editor at a popular legal web site called Above the Law wrote a piece on him and titled it "New Tulane 1L Is an Advocate, A Writer, and A Murderer." The writer asked readers which of the nouns in the title had caught their attention. This question prompted a multitude of negative comments by fellow law students, some unbelievably hateful and downright wrong. One astute student said, "Are the students correct in being worried that, when placed in one of the most stress-inducing environments in the United States, Mr. Reilly will reach his tipping point and live up to his violent past, pulling a Virginia Tech-esque move and harming fellow students?" I could not believe that statements like these were written by law students. To my disbelief, many of them will go on to become attorneys to serve their communities.
I'd like to point out to these misguided future lawyers that there is a lawyer's code of professional responsibility that points out that the rule of law is grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and the capacity of the individual through reason for enlightened self-government. Law so grounded it makes justice possible, for only through such law does the dignity of the individual attain respect and protection. So for those hateful lawyer wannabes they need to understand what the word respect means before pursuing a distinguished career as an attorney.
But I want to make clear that the bashing that Bruce has gotten from Tulane law students is fairly typical for an ex-offender. The type of behavior displayed by them demonstrates how hard it is to re-enter society as a productive citizen. The road following imprisonment is not an easy one.
Thanks to long-sought sentencing reforms, a growing number of people now under confinement are being released into the community before completing their prison terms. Each year 700,000 prisoners are released, which is quadruple the number 20 years ago. Sadly, two-thirds of those released will return to prison because of a new crime or parole violation within 3 years. Formerly incarcerated people reentering society will face a daunting array of problems preventing them from successfully reintegrating. These include not being able to find employment or secure housing, dealing with substance abuse and mental health problems, and difficulties in reestablishing and developing relationships. On top of this, they also must face counterproductive and debilitating legal and practical barriers, including state and federal laws that hinder their ability to qualify for a job or get a higher education. As a result, communities have been struggling to handle the extraordinary increase in the flow of people from prison cells into society.
So when I hear a story like Bruce's where he has strived to better himself as a human being and to become a productive citizen in society, I am sickened by the actions of his fellow law students at Tulane. When I was released 14 years ago from the living nightmare of imprisonment, I found that returning to the real world was both frightening and unbelievably difficult. Freedom smacked me in the face swiftly, and it was quite overpowering. As the gate of the prison opened and I walked out a free man, I should have been the happiest person alive. But I wasn't. My first steps out of prison were full of cautiousness. I was very scared. My main concern was the question that every prisoner facing release thinks about: "Will I be able to survive life on the outside?"
Now, unbelievably, Bruce Reilly is asking the very same question as a law student on the campus of Tulane University Law School.
Follow Anthony Papa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AnthonyPapa
I feel like people are making a lot of references to outside information that I'm not having an easy time finding via ye olde google (outside information that just happens to make Reilly look like some kind of unrepentant spree-killer).
Myself I'm with Mr. Papa on this one... there's no question that Reilly committed a terrible crime, but he has done a lot to redeem himself, and while his victim's family will have always suffered a terrible loss... condemning Reilly to a life of doing nothing helps no one, and could potentially hurt many more.
All of that said I have two comments: one, concerns over a student is nothing new... without naming names, there was some concern raised about a Tulane student a few years ago, I'm sure it happens at other schools as well. It sounds like Mr. Reilly has done more than enough in the years that followed his conviction to allay most fears (and I would imagine Tulane was particularly careful after their problems a few years ago).
Two: if anything, I'd be more concerned about Mr. Reilly's post-lawschool experience. Sure, a law school saw merit in him, but is a state bar going to be so generous?
That does not sound like remorse to me. Here's the disqus link: http://disqus.com/facebook-52804491/
I'm currently a 1L here at Tulane and I can say that not all of us feel the same way as the anonymous e-mailer. It seems to me that this is a case of the vocal minority dictating the narrative of the story. I, for one, have no problem with the administration admitting Bruce, and I know many others here feel the same way.
In a subsequent post on the blog that broke this story there is a poll asking whether people believe murderers should be allowed in law school. While this poll is open to everyone, not just Tulane or law school students in general (and by no means scientific), currently 50% of the people say a second chance is deserved (while another 14% supported Bruce until they heard the details of his crime; showing that they are, at least, open to the idea of allowing an ex-con in law school).
I understand the point of your article, and in general, I don't disagree, but painting the entire population of Tulane Law in such a way seems irresponsible.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that that 14% shows they would be, at least, open to the idea of accepting a convicted murderer.
More to your point: there is no way to objectively determine whether someone has spent enough time in jail, as that is an incredibly subjective question. Therefore, I'm not going to argue it here because I'm sure nothing I can say will convince you to change your opinion. I can say this though, your assertion that he is "expecting to be treated like it never happened," does not seem true at all. A quote from an article written for the Times-Picayune:
"I brought this on myself. For the last 19 years I've had to come to grips every day with the terrible thing I've done. I took a man's life. How can I possibly brush that off, or make up for it?....Since then I've tried to live my life helping other people, figuring my actions would speak louder than any words I could say."
I think Bruce understands that people will probably look at him differently, and to some degree I think he accepts that (although it's hard for me to say definitely, having never asked him - I should mention here that I don't know Bruce and would not presume to know his thoughts or expectations). It seems to me that all he is asking for is the chance to continue turning his life, having paid his debt to society (at least according to the justice system).
Inherent in letting a person out of jail is the idea that they are safe and acceptable to the general public. If we accept that at least some part of the prison system is meant for rehabilitation--a novel idea, I know-- then we have to accept that people can change. We lament the fact and wonder why recidivism rates are so high, and yet here we are attempting to ostracize a man who is genuinely trying to become a better person and at least attempt to make up for his wrongs.
I understand the thought that 'you took a life, now you'll spend the rest of your life in jail,' as it appeals to a certain rational sensibility in all of us. But people can change, people can be better, and if one truly values life--all life--then they would not be so quick to throw away one that can still be saved.
Perhaps because it disagrees with your narrative?
Drug crimes should do ZERO time in jail, probably not unlike your position with the Drug Policy Alliance would dictate.
Murder? Life. Just like the life they took.
This wasn't an accident or even a case of self-defense. This a man being stabbed 24 times, and the person who did it not only trying to get away with it, but using the dead man's credit cards to go on a shopping spree.
Reilly was COMPLETELY conscious of what he was doing, and he made choices, both at the time and afterward, that indicate that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
Why should ANYONE assume that Reilly wouldn't do it again?
When Bruce Reilly murdered Charles Russell by stabbing him 24 times, he took away everything that man could ever be, deprived Professor Russel of any redemption, any growth, any joy. Bruce Reilly deserves a lifetime of guilt. Do you know what he did after he murdered that professor? He didn't turn himself in. He didn't collapse in remorse. He went shopping with the dead man's credit cards, being very careful to avoid store security cameras. It took a manhunt to bring him in. He had no respect for the law, so he should not be a lawyer.
Let's talk about a hypothetical. Should women be allowed to worry if a rapist enrolls in class? Then why shouldn't everyone be allowed to worry when a murderer enrolls in class?
Putting a man outside the prison gates with 50 bucks and a bus ticket--then telling him "Make it, or else!" isn't a good option to reduce recidivism, as anyone with open eyes can see. The rest tend to be in the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" camp.
Thanks for this article.
The bigger picture is, people hear what you say, they know you by what you do. Respect is earned, not given. "Youthful indescretion" doesn't cut it in the real world. You and "ex-offenders" feel it's unfair that you be so harshly judged, Your own actions have placed you under greater scrutiny, it is a situation that you have "earned" If you want "respect" both you he, and others like him must make that daily effort like everyone else.
When does it end? When you die, just like everyone else.