Academic

Is "He Brings Home The Bacon" A Legitimate Sentence Mitigator For Corrupt Legislators?

By Dan Filler

Two days ago, Pennsylvania State Senator Vince Fumo (from Philadelphia) was sentenced on 137 fraud (and fraud-related) counts.  Among other things, he was convicted of defrauding the PA Senate and a non-profit for his own personal benefit.  He also obstructed the investigation by ordering destruction of email.  The guidelines called for roughly 10-14 years, based on the judge's calculation of the amount of fraud.  (The U.S. attorney had a different read on the dollars involved, and pushed for a sentence north of 20 years.)  Shockingly - at least from the point of view of many Philadelphians who have been watching this saga unfold for a while - the judge departed wildly downward, handing Fumo a 55 month prison bid.

All of this is just big local news - not much more.   But one point raised by Fumo's attorneys, in the effort to mitigate his sentence, really caught my eye.  They argued that he was a particularly good fellow because, in the Senate, he fought for Philadelphia to receive a bigger share of the Commonwealth's overall expenditure pie.  For example, they introduced a letter from David Cohen, a Comcast exec and former city govenment bigwig, who said that Fumo was "the city's #1 protector in Harrisburg."  Is that really a reason to go light on a crook?  At best, isn't his success in that vein evidence of competence rather than good works?  I never think of competence, per se, as a mitigator.  Enormous talent can be used for good or evil; why should the mere existence of talent tilt the scales?

But is being an advocate for your constituents - bringing home the bacon to your home town - something that made Vince Fumo a better human being?  I can't imagine the folks in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre, Erie, Scranton, Altoona, or Townville think so.  To the extent that they had needs unmet as a result of Fumo's tough fight for Philly, they probably think he's a worse person.  I can understand why a local judge in Philadelphia, unwilling to see himself or herself as a Pennsylvania judge (notwithstanding reality), might like Fumo for this success.  It would be the same reason why a highly effective pitcher for the Phillies might get a lighter sentence  in Philly than a similarly successful Pittsburgh Pirate hurler.  But isn't that wrong?  And here, where the decider was a federal judge, I'd hope this argument would be dismissed as silly.

Of course, we'll never know preciselywhy the judge diverted so wildly - although he suggested that it was because Fumo gave many years of extraordinary service.  Perhaps it was that Fumo cobbled together letters from lots of folks telling the story of his goodness.  (Even Governor Rendell sent a cautiously supportive letter (with "mixed feelings") praising Fumo for "working tirelessly to protect the poorest and most vulnerable citizens of Philadelphia" while noting that he had "dishonored the profession.")  Maybe it was because he's 66 and not in tip-top health.  Maybe it was because he was kind to puppies.  But would it be legitimate to do so simply because he was exemplary at bringing home the bacon?

If so, why even bother prosecuting someone like Ted Stevens.  He was such a good guy, we should be paying him restitution.

Image: Fumo's mansion, nicely buffed thanks to a non-profit he founded and plundered.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on July 16, 2009 (boomark / email).