Bound by his own aggression

The parole board, which refused Wednesday to shorten the prison sentence of former president and convicted rapist Moshe Katsav, based its decision on the defining characteristic of his behavior throughout the entire case: aggressiveness.

A detailed review of the case finds this to be true. Even his initiative to complain to former Attorney General Menachem Mazuz about the victim identified as A. was a show of verbal aggression, using his power, strength and status against others, whether he was making claims or asking for help.

That is how Katsav has behaved throughout the case: at the press conference, when he lost his temper and dismissed the plea bargain to which he had agreed, and now, after more than four years in prison.

In my opinion, the authorities tend to shorten sentences by a third (and to grant "administrative" parole) too often in an effort to keep the cell blocks calm and to avoid overcrowding in prisons. There is no need to shorten by a third the sentence of a man who neither admits to his shameful crimes nor expresses regret for them. He may continue to maintain his innocence, but he does not deserve a reward for that. If it's so important to Katsav to stick to his story of innocence, then he should pay the price.

Stranger things have happened. The Jewish Underground was a group of right-wing militants who committed series of terrorist acts in the early 1980s. Around 25 members were subsequently arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. Leader Yehuda Etzion refused to sign early release papers, choosing instead to serve out the sentence that was handed down to him. As he should have.

Katsav's major mistake when he committed those deeds was, in part, the aggression described by the parole board in its decision to reject his request on Wednesday. If he had acted with more sophistication, he would have been open to reviewing what happened and to rehabilitating himself with the help of psychologists, who could have made him understand why he had allowed himself to behave with such aggression and helped him find the roots of what he saw as appropriate behavior, instead of something strictly forbidden.

He did not need to immediately jump to the conclusion that he had committed a crime and to beg forgiveness. He could have used his time behind bars to do some soul-searching. Perhaps he would have reached the conclusion that what he did was indeed a crime, although at the time he insisted otherwise. And perhaps that would have allowed him to admit what he did and to be granted extenuating circumstances due to his cultural and educational experience, which served him in an older society.

A professional psychologist would also have helped him recognize his crimes and their serious consequences, the way he aggressively took over women in his proximity, and allowed him to find for himself some kind of partial justice that would help him deal with his new and future reality without losing all respect from his friends and family.

At the end of the day, his belligerence won over -- not just in Wednesday's decision, but in placing a barrier in the path that would allow him to learn to deal with his behavior and return home with the ability to look ahead.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו