In one episode of "The Simpsons," Homer's first encounter with a television set after an extended lack of contact prompts him to exclaim, as he hugs the TV, "Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover." Homer's reaction is exaggerated for comedic purposes, but could prohibiting television watching actually be a punishment outside the animated world of Springfield? A Manhattan federal judge thinks so.
District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein sentenced vending machine repairman Edward Bello to this most unusual punishment last December. As part of Bello's sentence for pleading guilty to conspiracy to using stolen credit cards, he was put under house arrest for 10 months, forced to repay the over $26,000 he stole, and placed on probation for five months. The 10 months of house arrest were accompanied by 10 months without TV. Hellerstein banished Bello from the warming glow of television's radiation "to create a condition of silent introspection that I considered necessary to induce [the] defendant to change his behavior."
The judge allowed Bello's teenage daughters to keep sets in their rooms for themselves and their mother. If Bello is caught sneaking a peek at "Survivor" or "Will and Grace," he'll be sent to jail. His lawyers won a stay of sentence claiming the ban on television violated his First Amendment rights. While unusual, Hellerstein's punishment does not violate any of Bello's rights as a citizen. Criminals in prison lose their right to freely assemble, so losing TV is not such a stretch.
Hellerstein's punishment, as unorthodox as it may be, is commendable for its leniency in light of the facts. Bello, while previously convicted of minor crimes like petty theft, is not a violent offender and is his family's sole provider. He is not a physical danger to any member of the community. Though it's slightly galling a habitual criminal has never faced jail time, putting 60-year-old Bello in prison would solve nothing. The judge wisely chose a rehabilitative course of action rather than an ineffective, punitive measure destine to cause more harm than good. Certainly, Bello should be punished. But jamming an aging, non-violent offender in prison does nothing to rehabilitate him or address the root cause of his criminal behavior. The sentence Hellerstein handed down was an innovative measure correctly geared toward implementing a more appropriate punishment.
Though Hellerstein's alternative sentence sets an admirable goal, it falls short of actually reaching it. Never mind the difficulty in monitoring whether or not Bello actually keeps his word about not watching television in a household containing seven TV sets, including a Sony Trinitron. Despite Bello having sworn to the judge not to watch TV, how can it be accurately determined he didn't sneak a peak at "Elimidate?" The real failure is that Hellenstein gave Bello nothing to do instead. In theory, Bello will just sit around "thinking about what he's done." He needs to be assigned a constructive occupation to improve his life or, better still, others': read the classics, write apologies to those he defrauded, or research the economic damage caused by credit card fraud. The best activity, both to Bello and society, would be some sort of community service, since the condition of his house arrest allows him to leave for "educational purposes."
That the judge chose to deprive Bello of television is telling. Hellerstein clearly believes TV is a corrosive influence on modern life if he banished it to clear the defendant's mind of ill ideas. Is television so central to our lives that denying access to it is a harsh punishment? While a valuable conduit for information and entertainment, television is not such a central influence of life as to elicit waves of contrition upon its removal. Bello and his wife asserted he is not a habitual TV watcher. Choosing TV may address a symptom of his obvious lack of ethics - lack of introspection about his actions - but does nothing to treat or address the cause of his criminal activities or the thoughts that inspire them.
For Homer Simpson, losing TV would be enough of a punishment to inspire an eternity of good behavior, possibly even saintliness. For Edward Bello, losing television access is an unusual punishment, but likely to have very little success in curbing his criminal impulses.
