The Rehabilitation of Mohammad Amir: the Ifs and Butts

m.amir_

On 28 January, following a much-anticipated ruling, the ICC released this statement:

Sir Ronnie Flanagan, with the prior approval of the ICC board and the Pakistan Cricket Board, has exercised his discretion to allow Mohammad Amir to return to domestic cricket played under the auspices of the Pakistan Cricket Board with immediate effect.

The ban was not due to end till 2nd September 2015, and the decision has brought forward by eight months an impassioned debate about whether the convicted spot-fixer Amir should be allowed to return to cricket at all.

Nicholas Sharland argued here that the integrity of cricket would be imperilled if Amir returned to professional cricket. Peter Miller was less vehement here, preferring each case to be tested on its merits.  James Marsh, in a piece that anticipated the ruling, argues that allowing Amir back into cricket is an opportunity for the game to show some compassion and civility. The arguments on each side have been intelligent, well presented and persuasively deployed, yet there is no consensus.

The legal considerations are fairly easily dealt with. On 3rd November 2011, at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Justice Cooke imposed a six-month custodial sentence on Amir. Make no mistake, his time spent at Feltham and later at Portland Young Offenders Institutions will have been hard and unpleasant. Both have reputations for violence and racism. He was released on licence on 1st February 2012 after serving half his sentence.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Amir’s conviction became ‘spent’ two years following the end of his sentence. In other words, from 3rd May 2014, under the law of the land that convicted him, Amir must be treated for all purposes as though he had not committed or been charged or prosecuted or convicted of the offence.

For the avoidance of doubt, Amir has served his entire sentence (in custody and out on licence), he has been rehabilitated and, in this country at least, it is against the law to refuse him employment on the grounds of his 2011 conviction.

Back in February 2011, the ICC banned Amir from participating in any cricket-related activities for five years. The ban was due to expire on 2nd September 2015 anyway, but, as indicated above, the suspension has now been relaxed by Flanagan, the head of the ICC’s Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU).

There is nothing to stop Amir now returning to domestic cricket in Pakistan now, and from 2nd September to any form of cricket. In fact, he played in a club match in Lahore on Saturday, taking 3 for 23. Within these minor constraints, he is a free agent. So why all the hand-wringing?

Those on Nicholas Sharland’s side of the argument will say it’s an issue that goes beyond the law; it’s about the integrity of cricket. As Mr Justice Cooke said, in delivering his sentence:

These crimes…require that a sentence be imposed which…acts as a deterrent for any future cricketers who may be tempted.

The whole point about deterrence is that it requires a clear message to be sent out. Only zero tolerance prevents the message from becoming ambiguous. It is a compelling argument.

The problem with zero tolerance is it imposes maximum punishment for every transgression. The weight or seriousness of the offence is entirely immaterial. The nature of the intent is irrelevant. Three strikes and you are out has sent folk in America to prison for life for stealing cookies. It may be an expression of a populist public policy but it is not justice.

It is an entirely plausible argument that the six-month sentence imposed on Amir by Mr Justice Cooke and the five year ban imposed on him by the ICC did not send a clear enough message to any future cricketers who may be tempted. But do not blame Amir or the Pakistan Cricket Board or even English counties that might come looking for his signature in fifteen months’ time. It is not their role to correct perceived inadequacies in the corrective system. Let such concerns be addressed by the policy makers. Marina Hyde explores this argument here.

But legal entitlements can be swept aside by a tide swelled high with moral indignation. So are there ethical grounds for dissuading cricket clubs or international boards from embracing Amir’s return to cricket?

I am clear that there are social-policy grounds for allowing Amir to come back to cricket. The law not only allows him to do so, it has specifically designed a pathway to encourage rehabilitation and enable him to return to his life as it existed before his offence. Even the trial judge envisaged Amir returning to cricket. The ICC has done the same. He has served his time and taken, with resolve and remorse, the path away from perdition and towards redemption.

The problem remains that there are complex principles at play and many of them are in conflict. Do the notions of deterrence and trust outweigh level of culpability and rehabilitation? Should punishment ever give way to forgiveness? Does moral outrage preclude compassion? Is retribution a higher value than remorse?

Most answers are likely to begin “Well, it depends.” If there is any hesitation in moral certainty then the matter has to be dealt with on its particular merits. If there is no hesitation, we may as well all go to hell on a handcart.

The trial judge told Amir on delivering his sentence:

You come from a village background where life has been hard … Compared with the others, you were unsophisticated, uneducated and impressionable. You were only 18 at the time and readily leant on by others. I am clear that you bear less responsibility than your captain who influenced you.

The judge told Salman Butt:

I consider that you were responsible for involving Amir in the corruption – an 18 year old from a poverty stricken village background, very different to your own privileged one, who whilst a very talented bowler, would be inclined to do what his senior players and particularly his captain told him… For an impressionable youngster, not long in the team to stand out against the blandishments of his captain would have been hard.

The court also accepted evidence that showed and underpinned the strength of the unlawful overseas betting cartels and the dark threats they posed to young men like Amir and his family.

Amir was more likely defined by naiveté than opportunism. More a patsy than a carpetbagger. A simple kid plucked from a poverty stricken family in an obscure, rural Pakistan village was likely ill prepared to meet the devious challenges of a wider, sophisticated world.

When the poorly schooled Amir, new to the international team, was told by his privileged, well-educated, social superiors and mentors that no-balling for reward was a widespread and accepted perk in cricket, the question of knowing right from wrong becomes a little uncertain?

When the same young kid no-balled on instruction from his captain and his agent, and was encouraged to do so by a senior bowler, the question of obedience over responsibility can be a difficult dilemma even for those wise and experienced enough to distinguish between the two?

When he or his family were possibly threatened by ominous criminal elements, the question of self-preservation over ethical certainty shifts from his personal dilemma to one wrestled over by philosophers, psychologists and lawmakers through the ages.

How was the eighteen-year-old Amir equipped to handle these convergent pressures? What avenues for help were really available? Who would have believed the boy or taken any action even if he had the understanding and the strength of character to overcome the irresistible pressures put upon him? It is no answer simply to say “Coz it.”

It is not difficult to see Amir as the stooge, the unquestioning parochial foot soldier who did as his captain told him. He was born into a strict patriarchal culture where questioning authority is neither encouraged nor permitted. Any fault reasonably attached to the young bowler is in no way comparable with the blame that threads every warp and weft of Butt’s criminal activities.

Butt stole money from illegal bookmakers. He stole trust and integrity from cricket. He stole Amir’s innocence and promise. Butt is the thief who filched our goodwill and left us poorer. Butt should have known better and left us worse off. There are no ifs, and there should be no Butts. Yet zero tolerance treats Amir and Butt just the same. There is no justice in it.

Quite apart from lesser culpability, Amir deserves credit for de facto rehabilitation. It is well established that he is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law, but what about in the eyes of the cricket community?

The ICC confirmed that:

Amir had cooperated with the ACSU by fully disclosing his part in the matters that led to his disqualification, admitting his guilt, showing remorse and cooperating with the unit’s ongoing investigations and by recording messages for the ACSU education sessions.

At his trial, the judge gave Amir full credit for pleading guilty, which the prosecution also accepted was entered at the first real opportunity. Amir chose not to appeal the ICC ban and completed the ACSU education programme.

Come 2nd September 2015, Salman Butt’s ICC ban effectively expires, since the remaining five years were suspended. In principle, the Amir decision and the encouragement given to him by the ICC and PCA could be seen as a precedent. If Amir can be given a second chance, why not Butt? Again, it is a valid argument for the zero-tolerance approach.

But there are fundamental differences between the two cases. At a technical level, Butt’s conviction will not become spent till May 2018. He showed little remorse, pleading not guilty in Southwark Crown Court and appealing the ICC ban.  Salman Butt was already a wealthy man with substantial earning power. He was no ingénue, but, along with agent Mazhar Majeed, the architect of the scam. Butt was motivated by greed.

The most damning moral indictment against him is the use and abuse he made of his position as captain of the Pakistan cricket team. He was a figure of substantial authority, with a duty to mentor and protect the younger more impressionable players in his team. Instead, he chose to take advantage of his vulnerable charges and corrupt them.

Zero tolerance is unlikely to deter young men like Amir because the pressures they are exposed to are far greater than the risk of getting caught. It might, on the other hand, deter greedy corruptors like Salman Butt, and without them, the Amirs of this world would be enriching the game of cricket and not besmirching it.

For so long as we can say “It depends,” and prefer justice over retribution, we should examine such cases on their merits and balance punishment with re-integration as they deserve. Let fairness season deterrence and let’s claim back a little compassion from the cynicism dumped on us by Salman Butt and his inveigling, injurious associates.

Mohammad Amir’s exceptional potential as a cricketer should not be a factor in this debate. A lesser player should deserve the same consideration. Even so, there seems little doubt that Amir’s talent is driving the decisions and fast tracking his rehabilitation. Maybe it would have been better had the PCB and ICC let the five-year ban expire quietly without early intervention, but I do not see the issues are much affected by the eight-month relaxation. They are pretty much the same now as they would be in September.

Amir has gone on record to admit “I believe cricket suffered because of me…Fans were disheartened because of me. I want to make them happy and win them over again.” It will not be an easy journey and the stigma will be tough to shift. Maybe it never will. But I think the boy should be given a second chance to win them over again.

@Tregaskis1

39 comments

  • I can’t agree with the last paragraph. The guy was 18. He knew right from wrong. Sure, his sentence is over, but if I were the President of a cricket team, there is no way I would have him at my club.

    Cricket should reject him.

    • Totally agree with you Dennis. At the moment he can play domestic cricket. So be it as long as he stays over there. He should not return to the National Team ever. I have no sympathy for him; ‘poor little poverty stricken village boy’ cuts no ice with me. According to the PCB at the time, all the players were well lectured on the subject of spot and match fixing. This is not about justice or second chances, it’s all about the fact that he was an outstanding bowler but why should he take the place of some young bowler who has worked hard the last couple of years to earn his place in the Pakistan side? I can’t think of any other fixer (maybe Herschelle Gibbs) whose career hasn’t been ruined by being caught in the act so join the club young man.
      PS.
      I’ve just read that a social worker in Pakistan has taken out a writ challenging the lifting of Amir’s ban. Interesting.

  • I think he should be given a second chance. He is older and wiser and he knows full well that everyone will be watching to make sure he does not fall by the wayside. He deserves a second but not a third should he go wrong again

  • I’m prepared to give Amir a second chance. The other two, no. Butt deserved a life ban.

  • I didn’t know whether I was coming or going at 18. If I made a mistake because I was misled by elders, I don’t think it would be right to take away my entire career. It’s as simple as that for me.

      • Not saying cricket does owe him anything. I just think he did the crime, served his time, and that’s the end of it.

        If accountants get caught fiddling the books they’re blocked from being an accountant forever (as far as I know). But every accountant knows this from the start of their career. You fiddle and you’re out. Amir was never told that he’d be chucked out of cricket forever if he engaged in spot fixing, so why should he be chucked out retrospectively now? He knew the risks and penalties, got caught, was punished accordingly, and now everyone should move on Imho. Seems unfair to change the rules after the event.

        Basically, the judge looked at the evidence and came to an informed, appropriate decision. That’s good enough for me in this case. I have no appetite for further retribution. He was a young lad who screwed up. He’s not the devil, nor is he solely responsible for the corruption in cricket.

        • There’s also the practical matter of making it clear that people who are involved in things but cooperate with the authorities will have a better outcome than those who do not. In all of these matters there has to be some kind of conspiracy and there must be a way to break them open.

    • Completely agree with you James.

      I made plenty of mistakes growing up just like everyone else, to be punished for life for those mistakes would be utterly ludicrous.

  • I think Amir should be allowed to return (in the same way I think Asif, Butt and Chad Evans should also be allowed to return)

    The guy has served his time and should be allowed to resume his career.

    These guys have served custodial sentences and bans, you can’t then arbitrarily then increase these bans due to some moral outrage – as there will be no consistency of approach and thus no fairness if you do this.

    Once emotion gets involved, frequently logic vanishes (like saying “we don’t have an issue with 90+mph left arm bowlers, we were worried about the pitch”, when you have batted second…)

  • Amir ‘s naivety was exploited by Butt, and Amir has rightly paid a price, but the time has come to allow his talent to flourish again. Once Amir has proved his fitness and the retention of his skill he would make a great overseas signing for a county.

  • I’m afraid emotion does get in the road with me.Amir was just a simple village lad who could never have stood up to his captain .Who could he have gone to?Who would have believed him?Did he know it was wrong?Was no doubt told it was the way things were done.I think justice has been well and truely done and somewhere forgiveness must be shown.It’s so easy to be” holier than thou”I wish him well and a wonderful life of cricket

  • Mohammad Amir did wrong. He was caught and punished. Now that he has served his punishment it is time to get off his back. Good luck in your new life Amir.

  • Well written as always.

    Give him, a second chance and if that means that Butt gets one too, so be it.
    However, it saddens me that when ever anyone bowls a big no-ball I immediately suspect them of cheating. To me that is the real tragedy – I get suspicious every time there some-one drops a sitter, hole’s out to a stupid shot, bowls a series of long hops etc. As Alan McGilvray might say, “The Game is Not the Same.”

  • Compared to the sophisticated bastards running cricket at board level who get away with a damn site more in the way of corruption. And because of their sophistication and wealth they can hide their tracks and subvert investigations to protect themselves.

    If these rogues and scoundrels can avoid accountability and retribution then a few months here or there for a kid from an astonishingly poor background who is fully remorseful should get a break.

  • If you cheat in any way, banned for life. Simple. Can i now believe anything he does on the pitch?? No. He devalues the game now as have no idea if he’s cheating again or not

    • He didn’t cheat! What he did was bowl a no ball. Dishonest, lacking in integrity etc yes he was all those things, but not a cheat. He didn’t seek an unfair advantage to help his team win. It’s 5 runs for ball tampering. Perhaps it should be more. Pakistani players have admitted using bottle tops etc in matches to alter the condition of the ball and create reverse swing, and I’m inclined to believe this is just as bad, if not worse.

  • Eric, you have to define “cheating”. For example, last year Jos Buttler was run out for backing up too far as the non – striker. Was that cheating? Does it deserve a lifetime ban?

  • He didn’t cheat and no bookmaker was cheated.
    Read Ed Hawkins who will explain that you cannot bet on a no ball with the subcontinental bookies. All that happened was the middle man, to show how powerful he was, told the fake Sheikh they would bowl a no ball for money. With the fake sheikh currently under scutiny there is a chance their convictions could be quashed. Great to see them back

    • He didn’t spot-fix, and as Ed Hawkins shows, no bookmaker was cheated because no bet was placed or ever would be – so the charge against him was incorrect. And the no-balls didn’t affect the result of the match. But Amir did take instructions from somebody outside the game, to bowl in a certain way for money.

      Having said that, I’ve always had a bad feeling about the whole thing because it was entrapment. There’s no solid evidence that they (in particular Amir) would ever have done such things if the NotW ‘reporter’ hadn’t set it up and offered large sums of money on the false pretence of being part of a betting syndicate. You can speculate that probably if they did it once they would have done it again, but that’s not evidence.

      And what happens if the convictions are quashed? The case is among those being investigated by the CPS because of the lies the ‘fake sheikh’ is now known to have told about many of his high-profile ‘investigations’. What attitude should we then take towards Amir and the others?

      So it’s all a mess. If Amir really is this dewy-eyed village lad then he certainly deserves a second chance. Personally, I think he may be a bit more fly than that, but he has, as Tregaskis says, paid his debt to society and is entitled to start again.

  • James,

    My premise is that playing cricket is a blessing. If you shit on it, cricket doesn’t owe you anything. It shouldn’t have to or feel obliged to take you back and look after you. Cricket is not society. In society, do the crime, do the time. Then you can come back and play because you need to live. You don’t need cricket to live. Cricket should reject Amir irrespective if he is banned or not.

  • I thunk the English justice system missed a trick here. Should have jailed him for five years or so so when he came out he was eligible to play for England. We need all the fast bowlers we can get now…

  • My Tuppence Worth on the matter (For what it’s worth!) is this:

    He served a judicial punishment and under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the in the eyes of United Kingdom Law, he has wiped the slate clean, paid his debt to society and deserves a second chance – particularly as he seems to be led on by others (seemingly particularly, the “fake Sheikh” of Tulisa Contostavlos infamy).

    Doesn’t mean I have to like it (A la Ched Evans!) but I don’t believe in the extra-judicial punishment advocated by Dennis and Eric on these pages.

  • Sometimes a second chance is not a good idea. I think Amir falls into that category. Would you let a shyster handle your house sale?

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting