Introspection required when rehabilitation loses meaning
Henry Alphin, Jr.
Issue date: 4/9/04 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 1
Paul Krueger had an intriguing secret. Krueger was an assistant professor of education at Penn State University. Once Krueger's secret was made public, his life fell apart for the second time. The first time was by his own hand, the same hand that aimed and pulled the trigger of a gun 40 times, killing three people when he was only 18 years old.
On the night Krueger's life first took a devastating turn, he and a teenage friend had arrived in Texas after leaving their homes in California. Their goal was to become "soldiers of fortune" by renting a boat and eventually arriving in Venezuela. Along the way Krueger and friend met three fishermen and intended to steal their boat. Apparently, Krueger shot and killed the fishermen, whose ages ranged from 38 to 50. The boat was left behind; it is still unknown why this incident took place.
If this were indeed a horrendous moment of madness, and not a troubled man once again involved in conflict, then Krueger rectified the situation - if that is possible - by serving 13 years of his mandated three consecutive life terms.
Perhaps he was scared into doing what is right, but how long would fear or religious faith allow a killer redemption after pleading guilty in 1966? It turns out this may have been a guiding light toward a resurrection. While in prison, Krueger volunteered for the newspaper, and was also active in rehabilitative programs. His educational journey began here as well; Krueger earned a diploma, as well as an associate degree while incarcerated. In 1979, Paul Krueger was paroled, with a major factor being that he was "probably the most exceptional inmate" in the Texas prison system. "There is nothing further he can do to rehabilitate himself," the parole commissioners said.
In the blink of an eye, Paul Krueger engulfed himself in the world of academia. His educational tour included graduating summa cum laude from Sam Houston State University, a master's degree from California State University at Los Angeles, a Ph.D. in sociology from South Dakota State University and an Ed.D. from the University of Southern California.
His post-incarceration work experience includes visiting professor at Idaho State University, a tenure-track position at Augustana College in South Dakota and becoming Penn State's director of the Institute for Research in Training and Development. The IRTD is essentially a leader in employee training as well as management and development issues, whereas Krueger taught mainly graduate level business management courses. He was also an adviser to graduate and adult students in the College of Education, as well as having served on several committees.
In June 2003, Penn State officials were notified that they had been, for four years, employing a convicted triple murderer. As is the case with many universities, their policy did not include an in-depth background check on professors. The university reacted as any public institution would in today's society: they caved. The university's name was ultimately shielded from any further connection to Krueger via his immediate resignation; they also updated their hiring practices to appease the shocked and appalled. It is truly impossible to know exactly what happened throughout Krueger's life, but the major events are documented in criminal records and educational degrees. The mix of contradictions is almost as hypocritical as the social attitude toward reform itself. Are we merely quelling the fear of the convicted by promising a new life upon completion of a sentence - and a pat on the back for good behavior?
No one is denying the present character of Krueger, who is now 55. A list of individuals who, if not support him, at least have the utmost respect for his character, include: proponents of the effects of reform, professors, grad students, and even Penn State's Dean of Education David Monk, who reported Krueger to be "an exemplary faculty member." What does all of this say about our society? In our society, it is quite alright to walk all over us, and laugh while doing so, because we are very proficient at turning our heads and deciding not to get involved, nor to confront abstract possibilities. Yet, once an individual is marked, he or she either becomes a symbol for a cause, hence Mumia Abu-Jamal, or a totally new enigma is created, hence Charles Manson.
What we are left with is the position of, "What would I do in that situation?" Or, on a much lighter level, "Have I ever been in that situation?" The way that we respond to ideas such as these is emotional and personal because we can associate with the fascination.
Extending that notion, under what circumstances should we continue to hold the convicted accountable? Is there an age or maturity level when one is forgiven? In this case, apparently not. Have we, individually and as a whole, been force-fed lies so many times in our life that we refuse to believe that anyone is sincerely remorseful? Even if the individual is remorseful, do they have to prove it to us one by one? The moral court that has been created, and the penalties it bestows is, at times, harsher than the physical one.
Obviously the victims, as well as the families of the crimes, are the most important to sympathize with. They have been hurt and will continue to hurt. The pain that is inflicted on the convicted hurts not only the criminal, but also their family and friends.
If he or she has made a mistake, and has served time according to what the courts deem adequate, then how can there be a moral stigma among employers and the media to have the convicted remain ineffective members of society? Is it because so many criminals get away with crimes that it angers us, thus we want to see the personified evil in front of us repeatedly kicked to the ground?
The lifestyle and experience that we grow up in dictate the person that we become in a much more emphatic fashion than many will believe or consciously accept. At times bad decisions are merely a part of survival, others they involve pure idiocy. From bottom-level misdemeanors all the way up to convicted murderers - we have no reason for a prison system if uniform reform, in the shape of redemption, grievance, training, and acceptance into the workforce and society, is not practiced. While it is known that many will never be productive due to their own choosing, it is imperative that we give those who do care, at the very least, a chance.
However, what can you do when a history is trailing you, and every positive influence in your life is telling you to look to the future? I suppose it would involve attempting to make things right. It would involve waiting for the proper time, and a sensible ear. It may also involve a lot of patience and dedication. This must bring back memories to Krueger - from struggling to make it through the years in prison, to struggling to complete each level of education. The lives that he took cannot be brought back, although he wishes he could control the past. The money that taxpayers have paid to reform him was spent long ago. The "soldier of fortune" wants to be a civilian. It is time to revamp our mentalities.
Henry Alphin Jr. is a sophomore majoring in bioscience.
On the night Krueger's life first took a devastating turn, he and a teenage friend had arrived in Texas after leaving their homes in California. Their goal was to become "soldiers of fortune" by renting a boat and eventually arriving in Venezuela. Along the way Krueger and friend met three fishermen and intended to steal their boat. Apparently, Krueger shot and killed the fishermen, whose ages ranged from 38 to 50. The boat was left behind; it is still unknown why this incident took place.
If this were indeed a horrendous moment of madness, and not a troubled man once again involved in conflict, then Krueger rectified the situation - if that is possible - by serving 13 years of his mandated three consecutive life terms.
Perhaps he was scared into doing what is right, but how long would fear or religious faith allow a killer redemption after pleading guilty in 1966? It turns out this may have been a guiding light toward a resurrection. While in prison, Krueger volunteered for the newspaper, and was also active in rehabilitative programs. His educational journey began here as well; Krueger earned a diploma, as well as an associate degree while incarcerated. In 1979, Paul Krueger was paroled, with a major factor being that he was "probably the most exceptional inmate" in the Texas prison system. "There is nothing further he can do to rehabilitate himself," the parole commissioners said.
In the blink of an eye, Paul Krueger engulfed himself in the world of academia. His educational tour included graduating summa cum laude from Sam Houston State University, a master's degree from California State University at Los Angeles, a Ph.D. in sociology from South Dakota State University and an Ed.D. from the University of Southern California.
His post-incarceration work experience includes visiting professor at Idaho State University, a tenure-track position at Augustana College in South Dakota and becoming Penn State's director of the Institute for Research in Training and Development. The IRTD is essentially a leader in employee training as well as management and development issues, whereas Krueger taught mainly graduate level business management courses. He was also an adviser to graduate and adult students in the College of Education, as well as having served on several committees.
In June 2003, Penn State officials were notified that they had been, for four years, employing a convicted triple murderer. As is the case with many universities, their policy did not include an in-depth background check on professors. The university reacted as any public institution would in today's society: they caved. The university's name was ultimately shielded from any further connection to Krueger via his immediate resignation; they also updated their hiring practices to appease the shocked and appalled. It is truly impossible to know exactly what happened throughout Krueger's life, but the major events are documented in criminal records and educational degrees. The mix of contradictions is almost as hypocritical as the social attitude toward reform itself. Are we merely quelling the fear of the convicted by promising a new life upon completion of a sentence - and a pat on the back for good behavior?
No one is denying the present character of Krueger, who is now 55. A list of individuals who, if not support him, at least have the utmost respect for his character, include: proponents of the effects of reform, professors, grad students, and even Penn State's Dean of Education David Monk, who reported Krueger to be "an exemplary faculty member." What does all of this say about our society? In our society, it is quite alright to walk all over us, and laugh while doing so, because we are very proficient at turning our heads and deciding not to get involved, nor to confront abstract possibilities. Yet, once an individual is marked, he or she either becomes a symbol for a cause, hence Mumia Abu-Jamal, or a totally new enigma is created, hence Charles Manson.
What we are left with is the position of, "What would I do in that situation?" Or, on a much lighter level, "Have I ever been in that situation?" The way that we respond to ideas such as these is emotional and personal because we can associate with the fascination.
Extending that notion, under what circumstances should we continue to hold the convicted accountable? Is there an age or maturity level when one is forgiven? In this case, apparently not. Have we, individually and as a whole, been force-fed lies so many times in our life that we refuse to believe that anyone is sincerely remorseful? Even if the individual is remorseful, do they have to prove it to us one by one? The moral court that has been created, and the penalties it bestows is, at times, harsher than the physical one.
Obviously the victims, as well as the families of the crimes, are the most important to sympathize with. They have been hurt and will continue to hurt. The pain that is inflicted on the convicted hurts not only the criminal, but also their family and friends.
If he or she has made a mistake, and has served time according to what the courts deem adequate, then how can there be a moral stigma among employers and the media to have the convicted remain ineffective members of society? Is it because so many criminals get away with crimes that it angers us, thus we want to see the personified evil in front of us repeatedly kicked to the ground?
The lifestyle and experience that we grow up in dictate the person that we become in a much more emphatic fashion than many will believe or consciously accept. At times bad decisions are merely a part of survival, others they involve pure idiocy. From bottom-level misdemeanors all the way up to convicted murderers - we have no reason for a prison system if uniform reform, in the shape of redemption, grievance, training, and acceptance into the workforce and society, is not practiced. While it is known that many will never be productive due to their own choosing, it is imperative that we give those who do care, at the very least, a chance.
However, what can you do when a history is trailing you, and every positive influence in your life is telling you to look to the future? I suppose it would involve attempting to make things right. It would involve waiting for the proper time, and a sensible ear. It may also involve a lot of patience and dedication. This must bring back memories to Krueger - from struggling to make it through the years in prison, to struggling to complete each level of education. The lives that he took cannot be brought back, although he wishes he could control the past. The money that taxpayers have paid to reform him was spent long ago. The "soldier of fortune" wants to be a civilian. It is time to revamp our mentalities.
Henry Alphin Jr. is a sophomore majoring in bioscience.
is a member of the 
