It requires no explanation that this holiday tends to bring out pardons and commutations. Peace on earth, goodwill toward men. So those in positions of authority think about the exercise of mercy, some to grant it on Christian holidays to show their hearts are pure and others because they don’t think about mercy any other time of the year.
Governor David Paterson, New York’s blind squirrel, offered a gesture of Christian mercy to John White. White, you may recall, was convicted of the killing of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro, who came to White’s home with a mob to beat up his son because of a prank gone awry.
White came out with a gun rather than call the cops. Cicciaro died. White was sentenced to 2-4 years.
After serving five months, his sentence was commuted. Merry Christmas. The Cicciaros were not amused.
Reached at his auto body shop in Port Jefferson Station, the teenager’s father, Daniel Cicciaro, reacted with annoyance when a reporter identified himself.
“Yeah, what do you need? An oil change?” he said. “We got nothing to say about it.”
Apparently, nobody from the governor’s office gave the Cicciaros an opportunity to be heard.
Thomas Spota, the Suffolk County district attorney, said in a statement, “I strongly believe the governor should have had the decency and the compassion to at least contact the victim’s family to allow them to be heard before commuting the defendant’s sentence.”
It would be fair to believe that the hole caused by the death of their 17-year-old son had yet to heal.
Mr. Cicciaro’s mother, Joanne, declined to comment on the case on Friday. Dano’s Auto Clinic in Port Jefferson Station, which is run by the victim’s father, was closed on Friday, but a decoration, the face of an African-American Santa Claus, was taped to the outside of the front door. It was unclear who had put it there.
No lengthy explanation is needed to clarify why John White and his family are happy this Christmas. White would likely have served about 20 months before being released, and now his sentence is over. He has returned to the bosom of his family, his church, his God.
But this gift to White was at the expense of the Cicciaros. The latter aren’t a very sympathetic family, despite having lost their child. They don’t understand why others outside their socioeconomic and ethnic niche are so harsh, but they reflect the stereotype. Anger, arrogance and racial hatred. At least that’s how they’ve been painted, and how some of their friends tainted them in support. Frankly, that’s how I see them as well.
But there are people who believe that John White could have made better choices, called the police, stayed inside his house, behaved in a way that wouldn’t have left a 17-year-old boy dead. They see the sentence he received as an invitation to kill, a Texas-style approach to the Castle Doctrine rather than making the decision to de-escalate a heated situation.
White’s sentence has been commuted after a mere five months. This reopens the wounds of that night of bad choices. One family was given a Christmas present. One family was not. No matter how one feels about the Cicciaro family, they still lost a child. Goodwill toward men extends to them as well.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s good to see Mr. White out of jail. I didn’t know about this case until now, but IMHO he shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place.
It seems that bad choices all around went into causing the death of young Mr. Cicciaro. And, I am not surprised that his family is not more forgiving of Mr. White. But, regardless of the commutation of his sentence, Mr. White will always (barring a pardon) have a felony record, which is not a small burden to bear.
I agree that Mr. White should have called the police and remained in his house, but I can certainly see his concern. The period of our history where whites lynched blacks, often with impunity, is not yet out of living memory. But while his actions were perhaps negligent, I don’t think they rose to the level required by the criminal statute.
Perhaps this should be a lesson to us all that one should THINK before doing something that has possible tragic consequences? Even in states which recognize the Castle Doctrine, the fact is that once you have shot another human you must live with that fact for the rest of your life. I don’t know, but I think the Governor did the right thing and I hope we never hear anything more about this case.
God bless, Mazeltov and Salaam.
Lee
Hello SHG,
I blogged about this case years ago (I’ve long since deleted that other blog, I’m sorry to say).
I can readily understand John White’s belief that he needed to confront the youths armed…as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. And things like gasoline, beer bottles, rags and matches aren’t exactly in short supply – perhaps especially among teenagers.
Did you have to use the term “blind squirrel” to describe Governor Paterson? It seems to me like an irrelevant cheap shot referring to his blindness. If you feel Paterson’s acts of mercy are way too few, maybe try the metaphor of the broken clock instead?
Cheers – and I hope you had a Merry Christmas!
Jeff Deutsch
I agree. If the facts are as SHG has summarized them, then what Mr. White did was justice, and what was done to him was not (until now).
Consulting the Cicciaros would have been as unnecessary and irrelevant as allowing them to submit victim impact statements.
Criminal justice is served when it meets the goals of the state, not those of individual victims. There’s a reason why the case was State v. White, not Cicciaro v. White.
Victims opinions on the punishment or release from punishment of an assailant should never be solicited. They are immaterial to the criminal justice system, without regard to whether John White was justified or unjustified, or whether the Castle Doctrine is a sound or unsound policy.
There’s a mix of apples and oranges in your reasoning. The imposition of sentence is a legal proceeding. Commutation is extra-legal, a grant of mercy from the sovereign. Obviously, the sovereign can do as it pleases in commuting a sentence, without asking anyone’s thoughts or permission, but it’s not the same as a sentence and the concerns applicable to sentence are not the same as pardon or commutation.
Justice? You mean it didn’t meet with your personal approval, which of course is what distinguishes justice from injustice.
I rather liked the”blind squirrel” language.
On the one hand, I don’t mind Jeffrey telling me that he was offended by my analogy. On the other, I don’t care. I liked it too. That’s why I used it.
What other standard is there? Some “law” that a few people arbitrarily made up? Some “God” that a few people arbitrarily made up?
Seriously consider psychotropic drugs, and make sure the tin foil hat is on tight.
Scott,
I apologize for not being clear — it wasn’t my intent to compare sentencing and commutations/pardons as like items.
I know that the concerns of a sentencing (deterrence, a fair punishment, rehabilitation, etc.) are different than those of a governor contemplating a commutation or pardon (new exculpatory evidence, reduction of overly-harsh punishments or the demands of true justice, etc.). What sentencing, commutation and pardons do have in common, though, is that victims are not in the position to provide reliable insight to any of the concerns relevant to sentencing judges or commuting/pardoning executives as they contemplate their decision.
In both cases, there are two parties whose interests must be considered — and the victim(s) is not one of them.
I’d like to note that I live in Finland, which is a (kind-of) civil law jurisdiction. (Not the Code Napoleon, but the Swedish law of 1734, with subsequent amendments.) Here, a criminal proceeding has three sides: the victim(s), the prosecution and the defendant.
In fact, even if the prosecutor declines to prosecute, any of the victims can start a criminal proceeding against the alleged wrongdoer. During the proceedings, at all stages, the victim(s) are allowed all tools available for prosecutor. The theoretical standpoint is that the prosecutor should be impartial, bringing up also mitigating factors and evidence pointing towards “not-guilty”, while victims are allowed to bring up things more one-sided. (In practice, it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to seek extraordinary repeals of conviction, if there appears new exculpatory evidence or legal development.)
For example, the vicims may demand a life sentence for murder 1, while the prosecution demands four years for aggravated manslaughter. And naturally, both the prosecutor and the victims can appeal to higher courts, in case of insufficient sentencing or verdict of not-guilty.
On the other hand, when a prisoner is being paroled or pardoned, not even the prosecutor gets a say. There, the things are completely in the hands of penitentiary system.
You wild and crazy Fins. The idea of the sides not being inherently adversarial, or taking impartiality seriously, is so utterly foreign to our concept of the system that it’s unimaginable. It would be wonderful if, culturally, the prosecution’s interest wasn’t in conviction (and holding on to its conviction). It’s just not the nature of our system.