30 / CHRONICLESnLetter FromnMinneapolisnby Elliot C. RotbenbergnCriminal ChicnThe gap between Middle Americansnand our cultural elite is nowhere widernthan on questions of crime and punishment.nWhile activists on the benchnand in academia have crafted evernmore rights and privileges for thosenaccused and even convicted of crimes,nthey have given short shrift to thenrights and welfare of current and potentialnvictims. In fact, prosecutorsnand groups like the ACLU pursuenintended victims who exercise selfhelpnagainst their assailants with anvigor and venom which in a morensensible polity would be directed towardsnthose from whom protection isnsought. (I am thinking not only of thentribulations of New York’s BernhardnGoetz, but also of the oft-burglarizednMiami shopowner Prentice Rasheed,nwho finally booby-trapped his premisesnagainst unwanted intruders—andnwas prosecuted.) By the manifestationnof a perverted sort of noblesse oblige,nwell-off liberals have anointed lawbreakersnas the real victims, victims ofnthe ordinary citizenry’s failure to providenenough money for AFDC, foodnstamps, educational loans, or whatever,nand therefore not responsible forntheir crimes.nWhat some may consider an exaggeratednconcern for the interests ofnviolent criminals (suffering from inadequateneducation and incomes) palesnin comparison with the veritable redncarpet rolled out for the rich andnfamous when they decide to Hout thenlaw for fashionable causes. Take, fornexample, the protests at the SouthnAfrican Embassy in Washington, DC,nin violation of a law prohibiting demonstrationsnat foreign diplomatic missions.nOf the thousands “arrested,” notnone has been prosecuted, much lessnconvicted. On the other hand, rabbisnCORRESPONDENCEndemonstrating in the same manner,nbut at the Soviet Embassy protestingnreligious persecution, have been jailednfor the same offense.nWhat is probably the nation’s longestnrunning series of politically motivatednillegal actions continues in Minneapolis.nFor more than four years,nmasses of protesters in the hundredsnand sometimes thousands have periodicallynconverged upon the internationalnheadquarters of Honeywell Inc. andnhave proceeded to blockade all entrancesnand exits, preventing employeesnand visitors from either going in orncoming out for up to an entire day.nThese assemblages are intended tondramatize (and maximize media coveragenof) the participants’ indignationnnot only at Honeywell’s defense contractsnbut over other liberal betennoires—like aid to the Nicaraguanncontras, the Strategic Defense Initiative,nand the Reagan Administration’snfoot-dragging on South African sanctions.nExactiy why Honeywell is tonblame for all these ills is not immediatelynobvious.nWhy have activists targeted Honeywell,nby any reasonable measure, anmore “socially conscious” corporationnthan most? After all, the company hasnused corporate funds to financen”peace” conferences at the Universitynof Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey Institute.nIts chief executive officers havenpublished pro-disarmament articlesnand have gone out of their way tonexpress sympathy for the objectives ofnthe demonstrators. As if that were notnenough, the company is pulling outnentirely from South Africa.nPart of the problem is that Honeywell’snlocation is so darned convenientnfor well-heeled protesters. The companynchose not to locate its headquartersnin some dreary and remote industrialnsite, like the facilities of another majornMinnesota defense contractor, FMCnCorp., which have never been invadednby the “peace” movement. Instead,nHoneywell set up shop virtually adjacentnto Minneapolis’ downtown, withnnna park on its premises to attract thenpublic. Even more to the point, thencomplex is only a couple of miles fromnthe city’s prime upper-middle-classnresidential districts and closer still tonthe most popular area of yuppie gentrification.nLed by the usual claque ofnprofessional radicals, Minnesota’snhaute monde has taken to blockadingnHoneywell as an ideal pastime onnbrilliant Minnesota spring and fallndays.nIn fact, an inveterate presence andnfrequent arrestee at these happenings isnErica Bouza, wife of Minneapolis policenchief Anthony Bouza, who hasnbecome a favorite on the wine-andbriencircuit, a unique accomplishmentnfor a law enforcement officer.nFor upwards of three years, ChiefnBouza has shown unusual solicitudenfor the comforts of lawbreakers bynproviding coffee and doughnuts fornthose arrested at Honeywell. Mr.nBouza told the local press last Aprilnthat the illegal blockades were “democracynat its best” and that the hungrynand thirsty demonstrators takenninto custody “are decent people whonare taking part in an act of conscience.”nThe complaisance of Minnesota’sngoverning establishment only beginsnwith the police chief and extends tonthe state’s highest court. Almost fromnthe beginning, the protesters duringnthese trials have not denied violatingnstate trespass laws but have insistednthat the moral superiority of theirnviews on U.S. disarmament and othernmatters of import should supersede thendictates of the criminal law. The use ofnthis strategem was soon thwarted by anpanel of trial judges which orderednthat such testimony be excluded fromnthe courtroom as irrelevant to whetherna crime had been committed and servingnonly to appeal to the political andnother prejudices of jurors. In an unprecedentedndecision a few monthsnlater, however, the Minnesota SupremenCourt threw out the lower courtnorder and ruled that the Honeywelln