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

[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.

[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.

[Kev]

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.