Luis Resto applies for a trainer's license. Yes, THAT Luis Resto.

Luis Resto Plans To Apply For Second's License in NYC - Boxing News


I say license him. He has paid his debt to boxing and to society. Margarito did nearly the same thing and he's making millions. Resto is a poor, destitute, uneducated man who only knows boxing.

He deserves a second chance.

Yes give it to him. Everyone deserves a second chance. Let the man do the only thing he knows.

Sure.. give him one.. why not? Top Rank left him for dead, broke and to never fight again but Top Rank will schmoooozz over a little here and there and make the whole NYSAC ordeal over an eye.. Margo should have been banned over plaster... but hey when your a super rich man named "Arum" you own boxing... proof is in Margo.

shit Margarito only was banned for a year and has gotten two blockbuster fights back to back, if he "deserves" a license to fight, give Resto his license to train

I say yes, nearly 30 years is punishment enough.

I'm glad to see that there are so many sensible and compassionate boxing nerds on this forum.

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

Resto cheated and got punished for it... Time for another chance.

I think he should be allowed a license, he's had almost 30 years and he doesn't know anything apart from boxing. He seems like he regrets what happened in a documentary I watched a while back. Like some of you said before if Margarito is allowed to fight after just one year and make millions, then Resto should be allowed a trainers license after almost 30 years.

Resto absolutuly should get his licence back, and an immediate shot at floyd (after a fight or two he'd call him out like everyone else anyway ) Margo got a freakin title shot for cheating so this guy got ripped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

shit Margarito only was banned for a year and has gotten two blockbuster fights back to back, if he "deserves" a license to fight, give Resto his license to train

---

this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

---

lol at characterizing Resto-Collins as "everybody makes mistakes."

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

Resto cheated and got punished for it... Time for another chance.

---

Let the Collins family have a say on the issue. If they are unforgiving, it's because they have the right to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

Good point.

Yes but Collins family's weigh-in wll only be a token gesture as the official ruling certainly could not rest on what THEY say. I say let them put their oopinion into it of curse, and let Resto make a statement to the boxing world about what he did and how officials can guard against that in the future. Perhaps he should be required to give a talk about what happens to young fighters who just go along with intimidating and/or crooked trainers like Panama. But I say let him have a license.

And let Pete Fucking Rose into the Hall of fame, will ya?! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

---

I am not very knowledgeable with regards to the law applying to this case. Maybe you are, so you can probably correct any of my misconceptions. Or we have some US legal professionals posting here in Saddo who can answer these.

Isn't it up to the commission to decide whether Resto gets the trainer's license? Is there anything in the law that states that they cannot get a feedback from the victim's family? If there isn't, then they should have the courtesy of hearing what the Collins family has to say. After so many years, they still are the victims. I don't think there is any expiration date on when they cease to be the victims in this case. Now, after hearing the statements from the Collins family and they decide not to grant Resto that license, did the commission then break any laws?

In the final analysis, it's still the commission who will be making the decision. Justice is served impartially by an authorized source based on all available information that is at their disposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

---

I am not very knowledgeable with regards to the law applying to this case. Maybe you are, so you can probably correct any of my misconceptions. Or we have some US legal professionals posting here in Saddo who can answer these.

Isn't it up to the commission to decide whether Resto gets the trainer's license? Is there anything in the law that states that they cannot get a feedback from the victim's family? If there isn't, then they should have the courtesy of hearing what the Collins family has to say. After so many years, they still are the victims. I don't think there is any expiration date on when they cease to be the victims in this case. Now, after hearing the statements from the Collins family and they decide not to grant Resto that license, did the commission then break any laws?

In the final analysis, it's still the commission who will be making the decision. Justice is served impartially by an authorized source based on all available information that is at their disposal.

---

This is reasonably and fairly put. At parole hearings and in criminal court sentencing hearings (in the USA) victims and victims' families are given an opportunity to be heard (make "impact" statements), and there is nothing improper about judges or parole boards deferring to their wishes, assuming they're within sentencing guidelines.

-LobowolfXXX (Esq.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

Resto cheated and got punished for it... Time for another chance.

---

...and it indirectly caused somebody's death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

---

Excellent post Bilbo ! YES !

The victim's family is very often going to be extremely vengeful and vindictive and in no way fair or impartial.

If things were left up to the victims family then I would just now be getting out of prison for an incident where I knocked a kids teeth out when I was 17.

Instead I had to pay his dental bills, got 1 years probation, and served 20 days of work release.

Haven't been in trouble since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

The victim's family is very often going to be extremely vengeful and vindictive and in no way fair or impartial.

---

Not always. There had been many instances of victim's family forgiving the offender.

Victim's Family Forgives Teen Driving in Fatal Crash

Family of murder victim forgives killer and accomplice | NOLA.com

Victim's family forgives San Diego DUI fatality driver

Victim's family forgives child rapist because of their Christian beliefs. Rapist avoids jail as a result...then rapes another child 8 days later. : WTF

Man says he forgives Humble officer who killed his brother

If the family remains vindictive, it's because they are still suffering from that incident.

Quote:

---

If things were left up to the victims family then I would just now be getting out of prison for an incident where I knocked a kids teeth out when I was 17.

---

Your case is different from that of Resto. Those teeth that you knocked out of that kid will grow back. Whereas Collins life can not be returned.

iAlso, in your case there were only two choices. Either you get released at some point in time or you stay locked up forever. In Resto's case, if he gets denied the trainer's license, he still has multiple choices. He can choose other jobs and there are hundreds of thousands of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

---

I am not very knowledgeable with regards to the law applying to this case. Maybe you are, so you can probably correct any of my misconceptions. Or we have some US legal professionals posting here in Saddo who can answer these.

Isn't it up to the commission to decide whether Resto gets the trainer's license? Is there anything in the law that states that they cannot get a feedback from the victim's family? If there isn't, then they should have the courtesy of hearing what the Collins family has to say. After so many years, they still are the victims. I don't think there is any expiration date on when they cease to be the victims in this case. Now, after hearing the statements from the Collins family and they decide not to grant Resto that license, did the commission then break any laws?

In the final analysis, it's still the commission who will be making the decision. Justice is served impartially by an authorized source based on all available information that is at their disposal.

---

I'm sure they will be considerate of the Collins family and will contact them as a matter of courtesy. But the idea that a victim of a crime should be able to decide the outcome of something just goes against the very notion of Western justice.

As Western democracies we put our trust in the rule of law and institutions of justice to determine fair outcomes.

The boxing commission obviously is not a law court, but it is the elected body with the authority to decide in this case. They will decide whether they believe Resto has paid his dues and is no longer a risk. I think they should give him another chance personally, but again it's totally up to the commission. There is every chance they will turn it down too I guess. It just sounded like you were advocating the Collins family having the final say and that would be a primitive and likely barbaric way for justice to work. That's how Arab societies work, recently some who woman disfigured for life by an acid attack had the final say on whether or not her attacker should have his own face aruined by acid. It was her call. At the last minute she decided no, I think the media pressure and publicity was too much for her. But personally I think it's a horrible way to serve justice. The decisions need to be made by an outside authority. Rule of law, not eye for an eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

---

lol at characterizing Resto-Collins as "everybody makes mistakes."

---

Bruh, ive seen so many worse criminals being forgiven for their dirty deeds..

Neutralcorner mentioned how it's up to Collins family to decide.. That's true, nobody else has a say in it..

But it's been 30 years man. Time to let go and let the guy live a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

I am going against popular opinion here but here's my take on this.

I would separate the Margarito injustice with that of the case of Luis Resto. Not because something wrong was committed with regards to allowing Margarito to fight again, doesn't mean that fairness will be served by allowing Resto to get a trainer's license. The difference is that he DESTROYED A LIFE, the life of a promising boxer which led to his demise.

If it's up to me, I will have that license commission get a feedback from the Collins family. They are the victims here, not Resto. If they are alright in him getting a trainer's license, that means they have forgiven him and had put this incident behind them. Then he should be given that license. If they object, that means the pain is still there after all these years. Then he should not get that license. Resto is still alive and he can do any other jobs not related to boxing whereas the Collins family loss a loved one. At least give them the courtesy to find out how they feel about this issue.

---

I actually don't agree with this at all. The laws that govern us are a society's laws we don't have fuedal justice or an Arabic eye for eye, blood money system.

We have law courts, legal systems, governing bodies, elected officials etc to determine justice for the good of society. It's not up to the desires of the victims or the criminals.

Whichever boxing governing body which is presiding over this has the authority to decide, that's how our Western democracy's work. Justice is served impartially by an authorised source, not handed out by those involved.

---

I am not very knowledgeable with regards to the law applying to this case. Maybe you are, so you can probably correct any of my misconceptions. Or we have some US legal professionals posting here in Saddo who can answer these.

Isn't it up to the commission to decide whether Resto gets the trainer's license? Is there anything in the law that states that they cannot get a feedback from the victim's family? If there isn't, then they should have the courtesy of hearing what the Collins family has to say. After so many years, they still are the victims. I don't think there is any expiration date on when they cease to be the victims in this case. Now, after hearing the statements from the Collins family and they decide not to grant Resto that license, did the commission then break any laws?

In the final analysis, it's still the commission who will be making the decision. Justice is served impartially by an authorized source based on all available information that is at their disposal.

---

I'm sure they will be considerate of the Collins family and will contact them as a matter of courtesy. But the idea that a victim of a crime should be able to decide the outcome of something just goes against the very notion of Western justice.

As Western democracies we put our trust in the rule of law and institutions of justice to determine fair outcomes.

The boxing commission obviously is not a law court, but it is the elected body with the authority to decide in this case. They will decide whether they believe Resto has paid his dues and is no longer a risk. I think they should give him another chance personally, but again it's totally up to the commission. There is every chance they will turn it down too I guess. It just sounded like you were advocating the Collins family having the final say and that would be a primitive and likely barbaric way for justice to work. That's how Arab societies work, recently some who woman disfigured for life by an acid attack had the final say on whether or not her attacker should have his own face aruined by acid. It was her call. At the last minute she decided no, I think the media pressure and publicity was too much for her. But personally I think it's a horrible way to serve justice. The decisions need to be made by an outside authority. Rule of law, not eye for an eye.

---

ITNC isn't suggesting that the commission isn't the ultimate decision maker. Taking victims statements and wishes into account is entirely consistent with western justice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

---

lol at characterizing Resto-Collins as "everybody makes mistakes."

---

Bruh, ive seen so many worse criminals being forgiven for their dirty deeds..

Neutralcorner mentioned how it's up to Collins family to decide.. That's true, nobody else has a say in it..

But it's been 30 years man. Time to let go and let the guy live a little.

---

As far as the Resto case goes, specifically, I'm ok with him getting another chance. As you say, it's been a long time, and I personally do think that Resto is remorseful and was also sort of mentally coerced by Lewis (who I don't think is remorseful). I do like the idea of taking the Collins family's wishes into account (even deferring to their wishes).

But as far as your general comment, I do understand (though I disagree with) the people who think that Resto's ban should be permanent. And they're not saying it "as if none of us make mistakes." We all make mistakes, and I don't think anyone's denying that. I like to think, though, that for most of us here on the board, our mistakes aren't multiple felonies that land people in the hospital and ruin promising careers. What Resto and Lewis did goes way the hell beyond "making mistakes."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm sure they will be considerate of the Collins family and will contact them as a matter of courtesy. But the idea that a victim of a crime should be able to decide the outcome of something just goes against the very notion of Western justice.

As Western democracies we put our trust in the rule of law and institutions of justice to determine fair outcomes.

The boxing commission obviously is not a law court, but it is the elected body with the authority to decide in this case. They will decide whether they believe Resto has paid his dues and is no longer a risk. I think they should give him another chance personally, but again it's totally up to the commission. There is every chance they will turn it down too I guess. It just sounded like you were advocating the Collins family having the final say and that would be a primitive and likely barbaric way for justice to work. That's how Arab societies work, recently some who woman disfigured for life by an acid attack had the final say on whether or not her attacker should have his own face aruined by acid. It was her call. At the last minute she decided no, I think the media pressure and publicity was too much for her. But personally I think it's a horrible way to serve justice. The decisions need to be made by an outside authority. Rule of law, not eye for an eye.

---

I believe hearing the Collins family's side and deferring to their wishes is within the western law.

And eye for an eye, which appears to be punishement identical to the crime as you gave in your example, does not apply in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

---

lol at characterizing Resto-Collins as "everybody makes mistakes."

---

Bruh, ive seen so many worse criminals being forgiven for their dirty deeds..

Neutralcorner mentioned how it's up to Collins family to decide.. That's true, nobody else has a say in it..

But it's been 30 years man. Time to let go and let the guy live a little.

---

I think you have to address this to the family of Collins. But we don't even know what their thoughts are with regards to this.

At least Resto is still living all these years whereas Collins died at age 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

It irritates me when people are so unforgiving, as if none us make mistakes..

---

lol at characterizing Resto-Collins as "everybody makes mistakes."

---

Bruh, ive seen so many worse criminals being forgiven for their dirty deeds..

Neutralcorner mentioned how it's up to Collins family to decide.. That's true, nobody else has a say in it..

But it's been 30 years man. Time to let go and let the guy live a little.

---

I think you have to address this to the family of Collins. But we don't even know what their thoughts are with regards to this.

At least Resto is still living all these years whereas Collins died at age 22.

---

Resto has done his time in prison and has been living in shame for the past 30 years..

It's over and done with. If he wants to get back in the boxing game, it's not up to Collin's family to decide. They could voice their opinion of course but it shouldnt hold much weight in deciding whether to license him or not.

It should be totally up to NYSAC..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Resto has done his time in prison and has been living in shame for the past 30 years..

---

Let me give you an example. A teacher who served his time in prison for molesting or videoing his students in the restroom. Should he be allowed to go back to teaching after so many years?

Quote:

---

It's over and done with. If he wants to get back in the boxing game, it's not up to Collin's family to decide. They could voice their opinion of course but it shouldnt hold much weight in deciding whether to license him or not.

It should be totally up to NYSAC..

---

I don't think there is a disagreement here. We both agree that it's up to NYSAC. The discord is with how much weight should they place on the statement of Collins family. And what we are debating here is, as of now, a hypothetical situation. We don't even know if they will even involve the Collins family in the issue.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the documentary 'Assault in the Ring'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Resto has done his time in prison and has been living in shame for the past 30 years..

---

Let me give you an example. A teacher who served his time in prison for molesting or videoing his students in the restroom. Should he be allowed to go back to teaching after so many years?

Quote:

---

It's over and done with. If he wants to get back in the boxing game, it's not up to Collin's family to decide. They could voice their opinion of course but it shouldnt hold much weight in deciding whether to license him or not.

It should be totally up to NYSAC..

---

I don't think there is a disagreement here. We both agree that it's up to NYSAC. The discord is with how much weight should they place on the statement of Collins family. And what we are debating here is, as of now, a hypothetical situation. We don't even know if they will even involve the Collins family in the issue.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the documentary 'Assault in the Ring'?

---

The Collins family may well be contacted, that would be a standard procedure. But in your first post you said that they should have make the decision. If they have forgiven him let him work the corner if they haven't then don't.

It isn't up to them. It's a critical and fundamental notion of Western democracy. We have the rule of law. The law decides upon guilt, sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation. It's an impartial system of justice that all must adhere to. The victim of a crime doesn't get to decide the punishment, we democratically defer to the decision-making of judges and elected officials, after a careful assessment of all available facts and listening to both sides. The people are represented via the jury. It's a noble system.

Obviously this isn't a trial but the same principles apply. Resto has served the punishment and sentence given to him, a sentence determined by the law as being sufficient for the crime. That makes him reformed again, clean slate. Obviously they will consider all aspects and will pay careful attention to the feelings of all involved, but Resto is no longer to be viewed soley as a criminal as he has paid the price for that already. They will decide whether the public interest is best served by banning him indefinitely or allowing him a second chance. To hand that power over to the victim is no longer to hold the principle of societal justice and law in the highest regard and goes against the Americas core values. Imagine if it applied in every case. Justice would become arbitrary and random, depending on the decisions, not of a judge, but the victims and families of victims. Then imagine the pressure that would be put on them. Intimidation to drop charges and be lenient, bribery, illegal deals, vengeful wrath, obstruction of justice. We have moved on from these more primitive tribal based justice systems.

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

---

There you go. You did a better phrasing of what I was trying to imply.

Neutral and lobo.. Understood..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

---

I totally disagree with your principle. Its not up to the victim, and their feelings on the matter are not, and cannot be impartial. The rule of law stands above individuals. The commission will decide if they think Resto deserves a second chance. They can listen to the Collins and factor in their views, but it would be absurd to think that Resto's future (or any criminals future for that matter) depended ultimately on what the victims felt. That would be arbitary justice, and the whole idea behind Western justice is that it is based on fair laws that apply to all.

When Tyson got out of jail, should the commission have asked Desiree Washington if he could fight again? Should they have asked the commander of the American army if Ali could fight on when he was released for draft dodging? What about Chris Eubank? Maybe Michael Watsons family should have been able to get his license taken away? Or the family of the man he killed when he crashed his 4 x 4? Or maybe the woman who he blinded when a firework he set off hit her in the face?

The whole principle of victim justice is archaic and doesn't work in practice. We are part of a democratic society, and as such we all adhere by the democratic law systems we have in place. Universal law and fairness, not arbitrary decisions based on the opinions of victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

---

I totally disagree with your principle. Its not up to the victim, and their feelings on the matter are not, and cannot be impartial. The rule of law stands above individuals. The commission will decide if they think Resto deserves a second chance. They can listen to the Collins and factor in their views, but it would be absurd to think that Resto's future (or any criminals future for that matter) depended ultimately on what the victims felt. That would be arbitary justice, and the whole idea behind Western justice is that it is based on fair laws that apply to all.

When Tyson got out of jail, should the commission have asked Desiree Washington if he could fight again? Should they have asked the commander of the American army if Ali could fight on when he was released for draft dodging? What about Chris Eubank? Maybe Michael Watsons family should have been able to get his license taken away? Or the family of the man he killed when he crashed his 4 x 4? Or maybe the woman who he blinded when a firework he set off hit her in the face?

The whole principle of victim justice is archaic and doesn't work in practice. We are part of a democratic society, and as such we all adhere by the democratic law systems we have in place. Universal law and fairness, not arbitrary decisions based on the opinions of victims.

---

You're sort of arguing against yourself here when you say that they can "listen to the Collins and factor in their views" (which is entirely correct and consistent with Western notions of justice, as practiced in the USA, anyway), but you also say that there should be (or is) "Universal law and fairness, not arbitary decisions based on the opinions of victims."

The commission has the discretion to decide how much weight to give the Collins family. Similarly, a judge can hear a victim impact statement, and decide how much weight to give it (within the constraints of sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Constitution). If you agree that they can factor in the views of the Collins family, then there is nothing to stop any given commissioner to adopt those views as the deciding factor in his or her decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

---

I totally disagree with your principle. Its not up to the victim, and their feelings on the matter are not, and cannot be impartial. The rule of law stands above individuals. The commission will decide if they think Resto deserves a second chance. They can listen to the Collins and factor in their views, but it would be absurd to think that Resto's future (or any criminals future for that matter) depended ultimately on what the victims felt. That would be arbitary justice, and the whole idea behind Western justice is that it is based on fair laws that apply to all.

When Tyson got out of jail, should the commission have asked Desiree Washington if he could fight again? Should they have asked the commander of the American army if Ali could fight on when he was released for draft dodging? What about Chris Eubank? Maybe Michael Watsons family should have been able to get his license taken away? Or the family of the man he killed when he crashed his 4 x 4? Or maybe the woman who he blinded when a firework he set off hit her in the face?

The whole principle of victim justice is archaic and doesn't work in practice. We are part of a democratic society, and as such we all adhere by the democratic law systems we have in place. Universal law and fairness, not arbitrary decisions based on the opinions of victims.

---

You're sort of arguing against yourself here when you say that they can "listen to the Collins and factor in their views" (which is entirely correct and consistent with Western notions of justice, as practiced in the USA, anyway), but you also say that there should be (or is) "Universal law and fairness, not arbitary decisions based on the opinions of victims."

The commission has the discretion to decide how much weight to give the Collins family. Similarly, a judge can hear a victim impact statement, and decide how much weight to give it (within the constraints of sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Constitution). If you agree that they can factor in the views of the Collins family, then there is nothing to stop any given commissioner to adopt those views as the deciding factor in his or her decision.

---

No I'm not arguing against my point at all. I completely agree with you that the feelings of the Collins family should be taken into account. Just as should the feelings of Luis Resto, their belief as to whether he is reformed and his ability to make an effective living outside of boxing, the only real career he knows.

You said the commission should accede to the wishes of the Collins family. That is very different from my (and the law's) position of taking their wishes into account.

All factors must be considered, but ultimately if they believe Resto is reformed, that he has paid his dues, that he no longer poses a risk to the sport of boxing, and that boxing is indeed his only effective avenue of making a living and enjoying a reasonable quality of life, then the feelings of the Collins family should not be the deciding factor.

Just to be clear, yes I agree 100% with this statement of yours

The commission has the discretion to decide how much weight to give the Collins family. Similarly, a judge can hear a victim impact statement, and decide how much weight to give it (within the constraints of sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Constitution). If you agree that they can factor in the views of the Collins family, then there is nothing to stop any given commissioner to adopt those views as the deciding factor in his or her decision.

They could indeed choose to give weight to the Collins family objections (this presuming they even will object), and rule in their favour, at their discretion. There is no problem with that.

But the assumption that they should do this, is completely wrong in my view.

Another parallel would be the case of Roman Polanski. A fugitive from the US for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl in the 70's he is still wanted by the American authorites and would be arrested as soon as he stepped foot on US soil even though the victim (now in her 40's) has repeatedly said she wishes they would drop the charges against him as she wants to forget it and go on with her own life.

They won't drop the charges of course, because ultimately his crimes weren't just against that girl but against society. He voilated the law and thus is a lwa brealer regardless of the victims wishes.

LIkewise in the other direction. When somebody serves their sentence they are a free man again, their penalty paid. That means in the case of Luis Resto, his rights matter as well. He is no longer a guilty man, but a reformed man. Therefore his ability to earn an effective living outside of boxing will likely be given more weight than the feelings of the Collins family. That is how it should be too imo.

I think the whole question is kind of moot anyway as he visted the family on that documentary anyway and they forgave him. They likely won't block it anyhow.

I don't want to infer too much, as I am sort of commenting on my understanding of InTheNeutralCorner's comments, which may me inaccurate.

In general, legal proceedings, particularly ones with constitutional implications (e.g. "due process") involve balancing tests between the interests of the individual, and the interests of society. The danger of blanketly placing the sole discretion in the hands of the victim (or the victim's family) is that the rights of the individual, or the rights of society, may be insufficiently protected.

For instance, if the Collinses were "overly" forgiving, then could have insisted that he be reinstated immediately, and that decision might insufficiently protect other boxers from a potentially dangerous individual. Or it might not be enough of a deterrent for others who might commit the same act.

Conversely, if they were "overly" vindictive, then there would be the potential for punishment that is disproportionate to an infraction. The legal parallel to this would be "cruel and unusual punishment" in the United States (one consideration of which is proportionality).

Getting back to this particular case, what I took ITNC to mean, and the degree to which I agree with him, is this. In this case, I think that the actual duration of the suspension to date, and Resto's apparent remorse, is enough that I think that a decision of leniency would not, in this case, by overly lenient. I think that Resto's punishment has been sufficient to serve as a deterrent. I also don't think that other boxers would be put in danger by Resto's reinstatement (however, that is not the only criterion at issue)

Conversely, I think that what he did was serious enough that it would not be grossly unfair if he were never reinstated. I think it would be reasonable for it to be a lifetime ban.

So, what I took ITNC to be saying (and was agreeing with) was that in this particular instance, reinstatement would not be overly lenient, and non-reinstatement would not be overly harsh. We're in a place where any potential decision would be reasonable, and so, in this particular case, the commissioners "should" defer to the Collinses. It's not, in other words, an "assumption" that they should do this, but a judgment based on the details of this precise matter. I appreciate that reasonable minds can differ on this.

With respect to the criminal sentence that Resto served, while the interests of the criminal justice system and the NYSAC are in some respects parallel (e.g. protecting the public/other boxers), they're not identical. The NYSAC has interests that are completely outside the realm of consideration of the criminal courts (such as protecting the best interests of boxing, a criterion that is specifically enumerated in the rules/laws governing the commission's licensing decisions). On the other hand, whether or not Resto is ready to be a productive member of society is a factor for the criminal justice system in deciding his criminal sentence, or whether or not to grant early parole, but is not necessarily a factor the NYSAC should consider.

So whether he's "paid a debt to society" as a matter of criminal law, while it may be related to the commission's decision, is not the be-all, end-all for the licensing decision, and given his history, they're certainly under no obligation to treat him exactly as they would treat a first-time applicant. Resto's having spent his time in prison doesn't obligate the commission to treat him as though he has a clean slate (as baseball commissioner Landis was permitted to ban players who had been acquitted by a criminal court, in the interests of baseball).

Ironically, when this discussion started, I was viewing the suggestion to take the Collins family's wishes into account as being potentially helpful to Resto; it's been a while since I've seen the documentary, but my recollection is that at least his widow had forgiven Resto, and deferring to her wishes may be favorable to Resto should the commission otherwise be inclined to maintain the suspension. But if they were opposed, I'd be inclined to defer to those wishes, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

He didn't say the Collins family should make the decision. He said that those whose decision it is to make should accede to the wishes of the Collins family.

---

There you go. You did a better phrasing of what I was trying to imply.

---

Hey InTheNeutralCorner ... So because Margo got caught before he could kill anyone that makes it ok?

So if I go in to rob a bank and I get caught with the gun before I put it at the counter I can say I wasn't going to rob them.. ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

I don't want to infer too much, as I am sort of commenting on my understanding of InTheNeutralCorner's comments, which may me inaccurate.

In general, legal proceedings, particularly ones with constitutional implications (e.g. "due process") involve balancing tests between the interests of the individual, and the interests of society. The danger of blanketly placing the sole discretion in the hands of the victim (or the victim's family) is that the rights of the individual, or the rights of society, may be insufficiently protected.

For instance, if the Collinses were "overly" forgiving, then could have insisted that he be reinstated immediately, and that decision might insufficiently protect other boxers from a potentially dangerous individual. Or it might not be enough of a deterrent for others who might commit the same act.

Conversely, if they were "overly" vindictive, then there would be the potential for punishment that is disproportionate to an infraction. The legal parallel to this would be "cruel and unusual punishment" in the United States (one consideration of which is proportionality).

Getting back to this particular case, what I took ITNC to mean, and the degree to which I agree with him, is this. In this case, I think that the actual duration of the suspension to date, and Resto's apparent remorse, is enough that I think that a decision of leniency would not, in this case, by overly lenient. I think that Resto's punishment has been sufficient to serve as a deterrent. I also don't think that other boxers would be put in danger by Resto's reinstatement (however, that is not the only criterion at issue)

Conversely, I think that what he did was serious enough that it would not be grossly unfair if he were never reinstated. I think it would be reasonable for it to be a lifetime ban.

So, what I took ITNC to be saying (and was agreeing with) was that in this particular instance, reinstatement would not be overly lenient, and non-reinstatement would not be overly harsh. We're in a place where any potential decision would be reasonable, and so, in this particular case, the commissioners "should" defer to the Collinses. It's not, in other words, an "assumption" that they should do this, but a judgment based on the details of this precise matter. I appreciate that reasonable minds can differ on this.

With respect to the criminal sentence that Resto served, while the interests of the criminal justice system and the NYSAC are in some respects parallel (e.g. protecting the public/other boxers), they're not identical. The NYSAC has interests that are completely outside the realm of consideration of the criminal courts (such as protecting the best interests of boxing, a criterion that is specifically enumerated in the rules/laws governing the commission's licensing decisions). On the other hand, whether or not Resto is ready to be a productive member of society is a factor for the criminal justice system in deciding his criminal sentence, or whether or not to grant early parole, but is not necessarily a factor the NYSAC should consider.

So whether he's "paid a debt to society" as a matter of criminal law, while it may be related to the commission's decision, is not the be-all, end-all for the licensing decision, and given his history, they're certainly under no obligation to treat him exactly as they would treat a first-time applicant. Resto's having spent his time in prison doesn't obligate the commission to treat him as though he has a clean slate (as baseball commissioner Landis was permitted to ban players who had been acquitted by a criminal court, in the interests of baseball).

Ironically, when this discussion started, I was viewing the suggestion to take the Collins family's wishes into account as being potentially helpful to Resto; it's been a while since I've seen the documentary, but my recollection is that at least his widow had forgiven Resto, and deferring to her wishes may be favorable to Resto should the commission otherwise be inclined to maintain the suspension. But if they were opposed, I'd be inclined to defer to those wishes, too.

---

That was a great post, I don't disagree with anything you said there at all. I'm also with you completely in terms of the fairness of whatever decision they come to.

I was just disagreeing with the OP's original statement that the Collin's family's views on the matter should be the deciding factor. As you put so well in your reply, it's the responsibility of those authorised to make the final decision to objectively weigh up all the facts and come to what they believe is the fairest and most just decision for all.