About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 79. Who were the Framers? | Main | 77. Name the profession »
Saturday
Mar042006

78. The world upside down

Last month a Lake City, South Carolina, police officer named William Webb pled guilty to a single count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.  The U.S. Attorney's office charged that he had sold cocaine from his patrol car, and took money from dealers, and sometimes even confiscated drugs from buyers and gave them back to the dealers to sell a second time.  He was accused of accepting a total $75,000 from one dealer over the course of years, although the news stories don't make it clear whether he admitted that.  He was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison followed by five years of supervised release.

This week, former Congressman Duke Cunningham was sentenced.  He "admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes", according to the LA Times.  In his plea agreement, Cunningham provided prosecutors with "a detailed list of payoffs, including cash, sweetheart real estate deals, antiques, trips, the use of a yacht, a deal on a Rolls-Royce and jewelry for his wife. The bribes from four unnamed co-conspirators came in exchange for Cunningham's using his influence to arrange lucrative defense contracts for high-tech equipment for intelligence gathering and analysis."  Cunningham was so blatant that he actually "kept a 'bribe menu' on congressional stationery indicating how much he demanded in exchange for contracts".  (Here's a selection of Cunningham quotes, which shows that his downfall was much of a piece with his rise.)

Cunningham's sentence, according to the LA Times, is "severe".  It's eight years and four months in federal prison.  Under the terms of the plea agreement, the judge could have sentenced Cunningham to ten years, but gave him a break because of his military record, reasoning that a "message should be sent for service to country."  (Now there's a military recruitment slogan!  Join the service and get a reduced sentence!)  South Carolina's Officer Webb, incidentally, also had an honorable military record, but his sentence is still 56  months longer than Cunningham's and (so far as the news reports reveal) he didn't even get the use of a yacht or "nine armoires, six Persian carpets, three antique oak doors, two candelabras and a china hutch."

Meanwhile, down in soggy south Louisiana, former Judge Alan Green was sentenced to 51 months (see post 67) and former Judge Bodenheimer got 46 months.  (See post 12.)  Both were caught in an investigation into bail bonding practices, which means that, in practical effect, they were using their power of office to shake down arrestees, most of them doubtless extremely poor, in order to line the pockets of their businessmen/partners.  In addition, Bodenheimer was caught on tape conspiring to plant Oxy-Contin in the car of a person who criticized the judge's poorly-maintained commercial fishing dock.  Green - unlike Bodenheimer, Officer Webb, or even Congressman Cunningham - refused to take any responsibility for his wrongdoing.

The New Orleans U.S. Attorney said in a press release following Green's sentencing that "[n]o crime is so disgraceful or shameful as the sacrifice of the integrity of a judicial office, or the violation of the sacred trust which citizens put in judges and other public servants in the criminal justice system."  Judges, those in whom we put our sacred trust, evidently disagree with this fine sentiment.

Whose acts were most harmful to individuals and most destructive of our society and institutions?  What Officer Webb did in his poverty-stricken small town was very bad.  But it was small potatoes compared to what Congressman Cunningham did.  And yet Congress and the military continued to function even with Cunningham forcing the military to buy substandard goods from war profiteers.  Cunningham was a glitch in the system.  But a crooked judge is the justice system for those unfortunate enough to be in his power.  A crooked judge is a negation of the very ideal of justice.  Judges who release dangerous people in exchange for kickbacks from bail bondsmen are sentencing innocent others to extreme terror and pain, even death.  A crooked judge is the world upside down.

Note the symmetry by which the sentences in these cases are upside down: the judges got about four years each, the flamboyant Congressman got twice as long, and the blue-collar, working-class guy got three times as much time.

Even after Booker, federal judges have limited discretion in imposing sentences.  The powerful demographic bias illustrated by these cases is institutionalized, not merely the idiosyncracy of individual judges.

George Carlin captured the spirit of the matter in Braindroppings, where he imagines the low-level Neolithic official - he calls him a primitive sergeant - whose job it is to explain to the band of cave-dwellers that, starting later this week, the corn god will be requiring the regular sacrifice of virgins.  Some members of the clan are less than thrilled.  The primitive sergeant reminds them that "I just make the announcements, OK?  I'm not involved with policy.  It came down from the high priests, that's all you gotta know."  He continues:

OK, one last point: You say, Why does it have to be a young virgin; why can't we throw a wrinkled old man in the volcano?  Lemme put it this way.  Did y'ever get a real good, close look at the high priests?  OK.  Once again, I rest my case.

 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.