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

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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?

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'?

[Kev]

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?

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.

[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.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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.

[FinitoElDinamita]

Neutral and lobo.. Understood..

[UnbiasedFan]

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.. ?

[Kev]

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.. ?

Margo was banned for a time too. And I'm not entirely sure he was found guilty. I think all the blame was put on his trainer, and poor Margo had no idea they were pouring plaster into his gloves. He was busy staring at the ceiling at the time or something.

[UnbiasedFan]

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.. ?

Margo was banned for a time too. And I'm not entirely sure he was found guilty. I think all the blame was put on his trainer, and poor Margo had no idea they were pouring plaster into his gloves. He was busy staring at the ceiling at the time or something.

LMAO.... that was funny... Good points but I laughed at the "Staring at the ceiling"

If Margo didn't have Bob Arum on his side... he would have never boxed again... Money buys anything

[Kev]

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.

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[Kev]

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.