Editor’s note: This commentary is by Kimberly B. Cheney, of Montpelier, who was Vermont attorney general from 1973-75 and Washington County state’s attorney from 1969-72.
[T]he meeting of TJ Donovan and Janssen Willhoit on Oct. 27 for what was advertised as a candidate debate for the office of Vermont’s Attorney General was an extraordinary event. Seen through the formulaic lens of political reporting it was another humdrum statement of candidates’ conflicting position on issues of the day.
In fact, it was something quite different. The difference was brought about by the fact that both men had been convicted of crimes earlier in their lives, and that they each had profound respect for each other. Donovan’s youthful assault conviction was the lesser evil compared to Willhoit’s conviction of fraud in Kentucky for which he served five prison years during which he was raped by corrections officers, and then, after years of working to improve the lives of others, was pardoned by the governor. The illuminating difference however, was that what was to be a “debate” was instead a forum for the two men, one of whom has been responsible for administering justice, and the other who has been the subject of such administration but had twice been elected to the Vermont Legislature, to articulate their despair about the state of inhumanity which makes the popular phrase “criminal justice” an oxymoron.
Perhaps the tone of the debate was set by reports that polls showed Donovan leading by 34 points which quieted the need for aggression. Still it appeared each had a genuine revulsion at the possibility of sending Vermont convicts to a privately run prison in Mississippi. Donovan’s frank acknowledgement that the criminal law apparatus was primarily class warfare against the poor, justified his plea for reforms that allowed youthful offenders to avoid criminal convictions that could lead to loss of education opportunities, jobs and housing. Willhoit’s concurrence was energetic, even though he criticized Donovan’s compromise on bail reform which permitted $200 bail instead of $0, on the grounds that $200 could mean poor people were jailed without trial. Donovan acknowledged that political compromise was frequently distasteful.
Each felt compassion for undocumented aliens facing law enforcement. Donovan was clear that a pardon entitled Willhoit to a fresh start and praised his new career as a practical example of how compassion in the system can have beneficial results for the individual as well as society.
Looking back on my own time as a state’s attorney, and Vermont attorney general, I was a struck by what a long road it is to create a humanitarian response to criminal behavior that often has its roots in deprivation caused by an unjust society. Nevertheless, I was encouraged to find two men with each of whom I could agree, candidly discussing a better future with respect for the political process and for each other.
