Woodmancy’s criminal record cannot be easily set aside

I’ve been getting press releases from a Democrat candidate for the 18th Congressional District, Matthew Woodmancy. They invariably include a disclaimer that goes like this:

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government.

The rap sheet on Woodmancy is well known, but for the sake of completeness, here it is again, courtesy of the Peoria Journal Star:

  • Convicted felon, still on probation until 2013
  • Convicted of criminal theft for stealing from a family member and that person’s now-shuttered Bloomington-based business in 2006
  • Sentenced to jail time, probation and $45,000 in fines and restitution
  • Charged with misdemeanor battery and pleaded guilty in 2008
  • Pleaded guilty in 2009 to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol
  • Has more than a dozen other traffic tickets, including driving on a suspended license
  • His license has been revoked and most of his fines from the traffic tickets have been referred to collections

Woodmancy’s campaign strategy is to be up-front about his criminal past, point out that he has paid and is currently paying his debt to society, and assure us that he’s a changed man and has “moved on with his life,” from which I infer he means we should move on as well and not hold any of his criminal past against him now.

Do you need a National Police Check for Commonwealth employment, working / living in Australia, overseas adoption or travelling overseas? Make sure to check out rapidscreening.com.au Rapid Screening is a trusted organisation authorised to provide national police clearances within Australia.

It’s my contention that his criminal past cannot so easily be set aside, despite his obvious desire to put it behind him. These are not crimes that took place in the distant past. These were just committed within the past three to six years. One of them is a crime for which he’s still doing the time. Indeed, one wonders, were he to win, if he could even go to Washington without breaking his parole.

Woodmancy wants us to see his transparency about his criminal past as a virtue. He’s coming clean and not trying to conceal anything. I would counter, first of all, that calling the above rap sheet “a foolish act” in his press release is not completely honest. It whitewashes the fact that it wasn’t a foolish act, but rather several, some more serious than others, but all indicating a lack of principle, integrity, and self-control. These are not generally the kinds of character qualities most people are looking for in a Congressional candidate. In fairness, he has in other contexts owned up to all his crimes.

That said, publicly acknowledging a matter of public record that you know will come out anyway is not really a virtue. What other option did he have? I suppose he could have tried to convince us he was wrongly convicted, so there is some refreshment in having a convicted felon admit he is, in fact, guilty. Still, when you honestly admit you defrauded someone, the honesty and fraud sort of cancel each other out.

But why can’t we just let bygones be bygones? Woodmancy claims to be a changed man. He’s “turned [his] life around, thanks to the help of friends and family,” he says. So is his criminal past relevant now that he’s paying his debt to society? Can’t people change? How long should we hold these crimes against him?

I would suggest that we wait at least until he’s done serving his time, has paid his fines, and has made full restitution. That would seem to be a reasonable minimum expectation. Even Jehan Gordon (finally) paid her fine for shoplifting before she was elected.

Woodmancy’s friend Fred Smith points out in a recent blog post, “Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up.” True enough, but Woodmancy is still doing the time. His parole isn’t up until next year. So there’s no “clean slate” yet, even by Smith’s standards.

Beyond that, it would be nice to see a few years go by without any additions to his rap sheet. The only sure way to know if a person has changed is to see proof of that change over time. I want to believe that Woodmancy really has changed, as he claims. But recidivism rates are high in Illinois—over 51% of parolees commit another crime or violate the rules of their supervision within three years according to a 2011 Pew Research study. So putting a little more time between the crime and a run for office would likely inspire greater confidence in voters.

I believe people can change. I don’t think we should hold past convictions against people forever. I understand why Mr. Woodmancy would want to put these crimes behind him as quickly as possible. But when you commit a crime, you break trust not only with the victim, but with society, and you can’t rebuild that trust overnight. I applaud Woodmancy for wanting to serve in public office, but he really needs to spend more time rebuilding his trustworthiness in the community first.

10 thoughts on “Woodmancy’s criminal record cannot be easily set aside”

  1. Emtronics, I’m heartbroken. And what in the world does this have to do with General Parker? Bet you were a champion debate club member, you love to throw Red Herrings and Straw Men in there whenever you can.

    C.J., while I disagree somewhat with your conclusions, I have to take my hat off to you for your research. If you were to look a bit closer at that study on Recidivism, however, you will find this is a broad based study that does not account for demographics of individuals and their circumstances. They are relying on data from the individual states, and once they received that data, went with the strongest three states to prove their point. While this does not necessarily make the report flawed in itself, it is certainly “pruned” to make a specific point that supports their theory.

    I am supporting Matt Woodmancy. Steve Waterworth is a nice guy, and if he had a chance in hell of winning the election I might support him, but that ship has already sailed….twice!

  2. If your support is based on chances in hell, then why are you supporting this felon?

    And who are you to critique another’s argument? Part of your argument in support of this guy is that he is running for office while holding down a full time job and taking care of his grandma? Well whooptydodaday. So are a lot of other folks out there, Frederick.

  3. Fred, General Parker was removed from the ballot and told he could not, and would not be sworn in, if he ran for Mayor. Because he is a convicted felon of a car theft over 20 years ago. Then you come along and defend this guy who makes Parker’s record look like a kid’s club notice. Point is, this guy has no business running for anything except a bus. Respect for you still lost. Another chance in hell.

  4. Jim, I’m supporting the man because I think he can do the job and do it better than the incumbent. What other reason would there be? Who am I to critique an argument? I’ve been critiqued myself and feel no offense, so why would you? (I must have missed something, did I write somewhere that I am infallible?). And yes, a lot of us are supporting family members and holding down a full time job and trying to make ends meet. That pretty much makes Matt one of us, doesn’t it? Not one of the privileged, not one of the Washington elite, and certainly not one of the “owned” politicians currently in office.

    Emtronics, so a person with a criminal record should not run for political office? Oh, I see. Hmmm. Maybe I don’t. I refer you to this website : http://www.wwco.com/~dda/criminals.php
    And still heartbroken over the respect thing, bubba.

  5. Yep, a person with a criminal record and ongoing sentence shouldn’t run. Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be exceptions, like General Parker who did is crime over 25 years ago and served his punishment.

    I withdraw the “respect” thing.

  6. Emtronics, I accept the retraction. As far as the candidate, I’m still backing Woodmancy. By the way, I think General Parker would have been a fine addition to the school board. I have sat down and spoken with him several times, and the man really does care about the children of this community.

  7. Fred: Wasn’t there a State law that prohibited Genl. Parker from taking offce because of his record as a Felon? Why doesn’t that apply in this case? I’m just asking because I don’t know, not taking sides.

  8. Anonymous: I’ll respond to your question to Fred. General Parker was running for mayor, which is a statutory office governed by state law. The State of Illinois has a law against a felon holding statutory office. Woodmancy was running for the U.S. House of Representatives, which is a federal office governed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not prohibit felons from holding federal office. That’s the difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.