EDITORIAL – Convicts can be rehabilitated

Apparently Arizona isn’t content cornering the market on breathtaking sunsets. Now, they want… Apparently Arizona isn’t content cornering the market on breathtaking sunsets. Now, they want to be the judge of good moral character.

Previously convicted James Hamm has paid a debt to society with 17 years of his life, along with serving time at Northern Arizona University for a bachelor’s in sociology and in law school at Arizona State University.

However, because of the location of the first rest stop he landed at on his way to pass the bar exam – and all the other requirements – the state of Arizona has denied him the right to practice law.

The problem is that there is no law in place that, even loosely interpreted, can support the rationale behind the decision of the state. Also, other than the crime he committed more than 20 years ago, his record does not suggest any outstanding offenses.

The method behind the state bar association’s madness is that at some point shortly after Hamm committed the crime in question, he was not forthcoming about all the facts regarding the case, admitting only partially to the crime. In other words, he is rehabilitated enough to walk around Arizona neighborhoods, but not cleared for practicing law.

We should probably kill the suspense already and let you know what he was in for. Rehabilitation and all, it wasn’t pretty. The grim truth is his offense, and the actions of his accomplices, cost two men their lives.

He was dealing drugs in the desert and he and a couple of his “business partners” were approached to sell 20 grams of marijuana to two gentlemen who would have probably been carded had they been trying to purchase cigarettes.

Somewhere between when the two men approached them and after, he and his friends thought it would be a great idea to rob them. In the midst of this scuffle, two men wound up dead. After Hamm was apprehended, he pleaded guilty and was handed a life sentence in prison.

So yes, it’s as bad as one could possibly think. In the state’s eyes, what made it worse was that Hamm stated that his intentions were solely to rob the men. He was then convicted of one count of murder.

But how can these officials uphold a system on the basis of the integrity of the law, yet admit that this same system has failed to rehabilitate an individual who became so ingrained in it he developed a passion for jurisprudence?

Despite the fact that “good moral lawyer” is sometimes jokingly referred to as an oxymoronic phrase, this man shouldn’t have to move to another state. Hamm should be able to practice law in Arizona. It’s bad enough that almost every other job he applies for will require that he inform them of his conviction and that he is constantly being branded with the stigma of his former life. The facts are that there is no proof that the murder was premeditated and the state of Arizona can’t base their decision on assumptions.

Perhaps the state bar association should be looking at the fact that Hamm has passed all the requirements, including a character test. The mere fact that he is free confirms that the state recognizes him as a rehabilitated individual. That should count for something. They must grant Hamm the respect anyone in the United States is afforded to.