Merit-Based Redemption

When somebody commits a crime and "does the time", has that person fully paid their debt to society? Should that effectively expunge and record of illegal activity, poor character and bad judgment that individual's slate? That seems to be the argument of Marc Lamont Hill, who laments what he sees as the injustice that Michael Vick - an ex-con who happens to be a supremely gifted athlete - had an opportunity for a redemption worth $100 million over six years, while other ex-cons find themselves permanently branded with a scarlet letter, unable to get the second chance that Vick has seized.

I suppose much of this has to do with one's frame of reference. Is an ex-con who has served time entitled to full restoration, including being viewed without distinction to those who haven't commit crimes? I don't think so. I absolutely am in favor of the rehabilitation of those who make egregious mistakes in the judgment in committing crimes, but to not differentiate them at all with those who have who have not been convicted of a felony seems terribly unfair to those who have opted to conduct themselves lawfully with respect to the rest of society.

For some reason, Hill doesn't seem to think that the distinction of being convicted by a felony as being a big deal or something that might speak to one's character or judgment. He writes:

The task of finding employment in this shaky economy is made infinitely more difficult for former convicts because of the pesky and often unnecessary "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" question that sits on most job applications. Such a question makes it nearly impossible for a person's slate to be wiped clean after leaving a correctional facility. In addition to employment, former felons are also systematically denied access to public housing, education loans and, in many states, the right to vote. These conditions, which scholar Michelle Alexander refers to as "The New Jim Crow," reduce former felons to permanent second-class citizens

It's almost as if Hill somehow misses the fact that the ex-con had something to do with getting convicted as a felony. There's culpability there, and before I place someone in employment, why wouldn't it be relevant (not "pesky and often unnecessary" in Hill's words) to know that the job applicant formerly held up a liquor store with a semi-automatic handgun, or beat his wife? And to brand ex-cons as "The New Jim Crow" is ridiculous, if not insulting to blacks who suffered under Jim Crow oppression during the Reconstruction era. Blacks had no choice in the color of their skin, criminals made choices to commit crimes.

As for Vick, clearly there's merit-based redemption here, but he's not the only who is the beneficiary of this. Former disgraced junk bond king Michael Milken managed to find great success in his life running a large philanthropy after serving 22 months for securities fraud. Ex-con redemption, like opportunities in the first place, come to those who are immensely talented and resourceful. Right or wrong, the capitalist merit-based system will always find room for a second chance to those who can benefit a team, corporation or cause, regardless of whatever skeletons might be lingering in the closet.

I suppose the sort of "full redemption" that Hill speaks of is available only for those who whose skills and talents are found worthy, at least on this side of glory. From a Christian theological perspective, it's a good thing that salvation and eternal life is a gift from God given by grace. And the beautiful thing is that grace is a gift, offered freely to the spiritual equivalents of Michael Vick as well as the spiritual equivalents of those ex-cons that never seem to get a break.