Rod Blagojevich goes to jail - why not public service?

[mathwonk]

I wonder how it benefits anyone, except old testament punishment advocates, for the taxpayers to pay for room and board for Mr. Blagojevich for 14 years. What about sentencing him to work at a public shelter, or other public service job, at low wages, and be required to house and feed himself, and not hold public office, for 14 years? The only cost would be periodic monitoring. (He should live in modest circumstances without access to stored assets, which would be frozen from him.)

Indeed what about something like this for other non violent offenders? If their physical presence is not a threat, why are they incarcerated? And if they have stolen money, why grant them free room and board? Maybe I am missing something here that has escaped me for over 60 years of observation.

I guess a free con man would be able to more easily run a scam. Maybe they could be required to work somewhere their identity was well known, so they would have less ability to dupe people. Perhaps public works, like a road building project, or even a free tutoring service, or answer phones at a public information center. I.e. the monitor could be their boss at such a job. If their presence was generally visible, they should be less of a threat to cheat someone.

They could even lecture at universities on their expertise, such as it is. Embarrassment to them should not be a big problem, compared to being locked up. And they could even be rehabilitated this way to some extent, by discovering the value of openness and trust. E.g. Mr. Blagojevich could teach how governments become corrupted and how they might be made more sound. All speaking fees above a certain amount going to their victims.

What are the obstacles to this? Is it only the "eye for an eye" people who would object? Indeed even those should not object in this case, if they think about it. I.e.requiring some measure of restitution seems more accurately "eye for an eye" for a thief, than putting him in prison.

Ideas?

 

[turbo]

Is there a good reason for him NOT to be imprisoned? This country has terrible problems with big money and political corruption that robs from all of us. He's enough of an outlier, that perhaps our Senators and Congressmen won't get the message, but eventually there has to be a reckoning. Blago should be an object-lesson, IMO.

 

[char808]

He already had his shot at public service and look how that turned out. A few years in a concrete cell might be in order this time around.

 

[skippy1729]

Great idea! And maybe Bernie Madoff could be paroled to do "public service" consulting on the Euro crisis and the US debt crisis. These people need expert help.

 

[Jack21222]

I think the idea is that actual prison time will discourage others from attempting the same level of corruption. Your suggestion wouldn't deter me, if the only punishment was a low-paying job.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To suggest a mixed approach; imprisonment is meant to be a deterrent to both others and the prisoner in future (as well as keeping separate from society). But for non-violent crime like this I don't see why 40 hours of the prisoners week aren't devoted to mandatory work, there are hundreds of jobs they could do which would not only be useful for society but also go some way towards paying for their room and board.

 

[phinds]

To suggest a mixed approach; imprisonment is meant to be a deterrent to both others and the prisoner in future (as well as keeping separate from society). But for non-violent crime like this I don't see why 40 hours of the prisoners week aren't devoted to mandatory work, there are hundreds of jobs they could do which would not only be useful for society but also go some way towards paying for their room and board.

Yeah, but chain gangs were notoriously corrupt (let's go fix the mayor's driveway, boys) is one problem, and the added burden of extra supervision would likely be another. I'm actually in favor or your idea, but it does have its own issues.

 

[Proton Soup]

i have a serious problem with this idea of embezzlers, con men, etc. being non-violent criminals. financial crime removes food, shelter, clothing, and education from you and your children. financial crime affects your physical well-being, and your mental well-being. longevity is associated with wealth, meaning financial crime removes years from your life.

what else can financial crime be except violence?

 

[phinds]

i have a serious problem with this idea of embezzlers, con men, etc. being non-violent criminals. financial crime removes food, shelter, clothing, and education from you and your children. financial crime affects your physical well-being, and your mental well-being. longevity is associated with wealth, meaning financial crime removes years from your life.

what else can financial crime be except violence?

Uh ... dude ... you are attempting to apply intelligence and logic to our judicial system. This will cause you untold amounts of angst.

 

[turbo]

Uh ... dude ... you are attempting to apply intelligence and logic to our judicial system. This will cause you untold amounts of angst.

Phinds is right about this one. Blago's last stretch in "public service" didn't serve us well. Continuing to do the same stuff while expecting different results isn't too smart. In China Blago might have been stood against a wall, and his wife would be charged 50 cents for the bullet. He has it cushy in the US.

 

[mege]

I don't think physical violence should neccessarilly be the determining factor for jail time - the big factor should be the impact upon a victim. If someone has no regard/respect for another individual - that is the reason to lock them up. IMO some mugger serving 2-6yr is probably less of a societal ill than the ultra-corrupt Blago.

Look at it in reverse: why would you not offer that mugger a shot at community service, but you'll allow a guilty confidence man to enter the system (and give him another chance to con his way through it).

 

[DaveC426913]

what else can financial crime be except violence?

Non-violence of course.

There is really no argument that financial crimes are not violent crimes.I think your question is why should non-violent crimes garner more lenient sentences?

 

[ThomasT]

I wonder how it benefits anyone, except old testament punishment advocates, for the taxpayers to pay for room and board for Mr. Blagojevich for 14 years. What about sentencing him to work at a public shelter, or other public service job, at low wages, and be required to house and feed himself, and not hold public office, for 14 years? The only cost would be periodic monitoring. (He should live in modest circumstances without access to stored assets, which would be frozen from him.)

Indeed what about something like this for other non violent offenders? If their physical presence is not a threat, why are they incarcerated? And if they have stolen money, why grant them free room and board? Maybe I am missing something here that has escaped me for over 60 years of observation.

I guess a free con man would be able to more easily run a scam. Maybe they could be required to work somewhere their identity was well known, so they would have less ability to dupe people. Perhaps public works, like a road building project, or even a free tutoring service, or answer phones at a public information center. I.e. the monitor could be their boss at such a job. If their presence was generally visible, they should be less of a threat to cheat someone.

They could even lecture at universities on their expertise, such as it is. Embarrassment to them should not be a big problem, compared to being locked up. And they could even be rehabilitated this way to some extent, by discovering the value of openness and trust. E.g. Mr. Blagojevich could teach how governments become corrupted and how they might be made more sound. All speaking fees above a certain amount going to their victims.

What are the obstacles to this? Is it only the "eye for an eye" people who would object? Indeed even those should not object in this case, if they think about it. I.e.requiring some measure of restitution seems more accurately "eye for an eye" for a thief, than putting him in prison.

Ideas?

I think your post is thoughtful, and deserves consideration. But, imo, especially felons such as Blagojevich should be required, upon conviction, to spend years behind bars doing relatively 'hard time' for their actions. The inequity in the US or any system of 'justice' is that most of the 'players', like Blagojevich, don't get prosecuted -- and if/when they do it's a relatively short stay in a 'country club' environment, or a fine which they can easily afford. The SEC is probably, currently, arranging to accept some sort of monetary settlement from a financial services company that has broken the law -- the net result of which is that the company will still realize a substantial profit wrt their unlawful practices. People like Blagojevich should be spending long and hard prison time for their transgressions. As should the people who were instrumental in causing the recent financial crisis. But the reality is that it's these very people, and their ilk, who actually run countries. Blagojevich just didn't have enough of the right friends, or money, or both. And then there's his hair style, which I think most people would agree warranted at least a few years behind bars.

 

[DaveC426913]

And then there's his hair style, which I think most people would agree warranted at least a few years behind bars.

Didn't the judge actually hand down a separate conviction and sentence to his hair? Blag might get out on good behavior but his 'do is a lifer.

 

[ThomasT]

Didn't the judge actually hand down a separate conviction and sentence to his hair? Blag might get out on good behavior but his 'do is a lifer.

Yes, of course he could argue that he would look far worse (like really bad) with a different 'do'. And looking at his pictures, I think I would have to agree (though I haven't seen him with a radically different 'do') -- with, eg., a crewcut, I think we're talking ax-murderer look. Let's face it he's a strange looking guy. So I say lock him up for a long time.

Like in the olden days. How do you know she's a witch? She looks like one!

 

[turbo]

Like in the olden days. How do you know she's a witch? She looks like one!

Does she float or sink?

 

[DaveC426913]

Does she float or sink?

He can't answer. She turned him into a newt.

 

[turbo]

He can't answer. She turned him into a newt.

That can't be good!

 

[Proton Soup]

Phinds is right about this one. Blago's last stretch in "public service" didn't serve us well. Continuing to do the same stuff while expecting different results isn't too smart. In China Blago might have been stood against a wall, and his wife would be charged 50 cents for the bullet. He has it cushy in the US.

yeah, well, i personally don't think he's any worse than any of those other Chicago goons. what got him in hot water was bucking the system. he chose to put in a senatorial replacement for Obama that went against the wishes of the political machine, and they turned on him.

 

[Vanadium 50]

He sold a US Senate seat.

Think about that: he sold a US Senate seat. Men and women have given their lives to ensure that Americans would have the freedom to govern themselves, and Mr. Blagojevich undermines this by selling a Senate seat.

Prison is too good for him.

 

[Pengwuino]

He sold a US Senate seat.

Think about that: he sold a US Senate seat. Men and women have given their lives to ensure that Americans would have the freedom to govern themselves, and Mr. Blagojevich undermines this by selling a Senate seat.

Prison is too good for him.

THANK YOU. This sort of stuff does more to undermine the foundations of our country than an assassin killing a President would.

There's a lot of talk about this being a non-violent offense and that he should serve some sort of community service so he can't do anything scandalous. However, remember, people like this don't need to be working in a high powered position to hurt society and scam people, nor do they even need jobs to do that. Their crimes were all about getting around the legal system to make their lives better. I find it naive to think they wouldn't try to do the same thing if released back into society.

This was not an accident, this guy proved that he is unable to function as a good citizen and taking him out of society is the only sensible recourse. He is an adult, he made conscious decisions to perpetrate this crime; none of this is 'I was just a kid' or 'I made one horrible decision in life'.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think physical violence should neccessarilly be the determining factor for jail time - the big factor should be the impact upon a victim. If someone has no regard/respect for another individual - that is the reason to lock them up. IMO some mugger serving 2-6yr is probably less of a societal ill than the ultra-corrupt Blago.

Look at it in reverse: why would you not offer that mugger a shot at community service, but you'll allow a guilty confidence man to enter the system (and give him another chance to con his way through it).

There are two primary reasons to lock a person up. One is punishment to dissuade further offense and to dissuade others from offense. This does not require a long sentence. Studies have shown little to no association between sentence length and the potential of said punishment to dissuade offenders. The other is their danger to society and capacity to perpetrate yet more injury. Violent criminals are considered brutish and likely to commit further violence if left free so keeping them confined is more to the purpose of protecting society than punishing the offender.

Blagojevich committed his offense as Governor. It was his office which gave him the capacity to commit his crime. If one wishes to protect society from Blagojevich it is not necessary to put him in prison, only to attempt to prevent him from being in a position to commit such crimes again. An interesting, and somewhat ridiculous, example of this is Kevin Mitnick. At trial the prosecution claimed that Mitnick was so dangerous that he was allegedly capable of launching US nuclear missiles using nothing but a telephone. He was only in prison for a few years but his sentence included a period of parole for several years after release that, among other things, prohibited him from using any sort of communications device other than a regular landline telephone. His sentence, while silly, was designed specifically to prevent further crimes of a similar nature without requiring him to be in prison.

At any rate, damages are a thing dealt with in civil court.

 

[Jack21222]

There are two primary reasons to lock a person up. One is punishment to dissuade further offense and to dissuade others from offense. This does not require a long sentence. Studies have shown little to no association between sentence length and the potential of said punishment to dissuade offenders. The other is their danger to society and capacity to perpetrate yet more injury. Violent criminals are considered brutish and likely to commit further violence if left free so keeping them confined is more to the purpose of protecting society than punishing the offender.

Blagojevich committed his offense as Governor. It was his office which gave him the capacity to commit his crime. If one wishes to protect society from Blagojevich it is not necessary to put him in prison, only to attempt to prevent him from being in a position to commit such crimes again. An interesting, and somewhat ridiculous, example of this is Kevin Mitnick. At trial the prosecution claimed that Mitnick was so dangerous that he was allegedly capable of launching US nuclear missiles using nothing but a telephone. He was only in prison for a few years but his sentence included a period of parole for several years after release that, among other things, prohibited him from using any sort of communications device other than a regular landline telephone. His sentence, while silly, was designed specifically to prevent further crimes of a similar nature without requiring him to be in prison.

At any rate, damages are a thing dealt with in civil court.

That's why Blago only got 14 years, and it'll be more like 12 with good behavior. He's going to jail at age 55, and will be out at 67. It isn't as if he's being locked up for the rest of his life.

I think this is just long enough to discourage some others from attempting the same thing, yet short enough as to not be egregious.

By the way,

Studies have shown little to no association between sentence length and the potential of said punishment to dissuade offenders.

can you link some of these studies? Or at least be more specific about what the studies say? Because taken literally, you're claiming that studies show that a 1 day sentence is about as good as a life sentence.

 

[rootX]

Studies have shown little to no association between sentence length and the potential of said punishment to dissuade offenders. .

You might be ignoring other variables .. homeless/poor person would have little to lose but when it comes to upper class, they have to risk a lot (image, family relationships etc) when they commit a offense. It's all about marginal utility vs marginal cost [1] IMO.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By the way, can you link some of these studies? Or at least be more specific about what the studies say? Because taken literally, you're claiming that studies show that a 1 day sentence is about as good as a life sentence.

You might be ignoring other variables .. homeless/poor person would have little to lose but when it comes to upper class, they have to risk a lot (image, family relationships etc) when they commit a offense. It's all about marginal utility vs marginal cost [1] IMO.

http://members.multimania.co.uk/lawnet/SENTENCE.PDF
While there can not be proved a negative there apparently has not been proved a positive. Certainty of punishment appears to be an effective deterrent while severity of punishment does not.

And sorry Jack but you're taking it to an extreme. I do not mean that putting a person in jail for one day is as effective as putting a person in jail for say ten years but rather that putting a person in jail for twenty years is not necessarily any more effective than putting them away for ten.

 

[BobG]

I guess a free con man would be able to more easily run a scam. Maybe they could be required to work somewhere their identity was well known, so they would have less ability to dupe people. Perhaps public works, like a road building project, or even a free tutoring service, or answer phones at a public information center. I.e. the monitor could be their boss at such a job. If their presence was generally visible, they should be less of a threat to cheat someone.

They could even lecture at universities on their expertise, such as it is. Embarrassment to them should not be a big problem, compared to being locked up. And they could even be rehabilitated this way to some extent, by discovering the value of openness and trust. E.g. Mr. Blagojevich could teach how governments become corrupted and how they might be made more sound. All speaking fees above a certain amount going to their victims.

This worked for Frank Abagnale, Jr (he's the guy the movie, "Catch Me if You Can" was based on). He was a check forger and eventually got a job helping the FBI catch other check forgers and eventually started his own security consulting company, helping banks avoid the type of scams he was good at.

Maybe. Actually, the scam may be the number and type of crimes Abagnale claims to have committed. He may not have had actual hands-on experience in committing all the types of scams he claimed to be an expert on. Which would be a rather ironic scam.

 

[John Creighto]

I don't think physical violence should neccessarilly be the determining factor for jail time - the big factor should be the impact upon a victim. If someone has no regard/respect for another individual - that is the reason to lock them up. IMO some mugger serving 2-6yr is probably less of a societal ill than the ultra-corrupt Blago.

Look at it in reverse: why would you not offer that mugger a shot at community service, but you'll allow a guilty confidence man to enter the system (and give him another chance to con his way through it).

The politics of Justice is often based on fear. So even if financial crimes are often much more damaging they are still much less scary.

 

[John Creighto]

There are two primary reasons to lock a person up. One is punishment to dissuade further offense and to dissuade others from offense. This does not require a long sentence. Studies have shown little to no association between sentence length and the potential of said punishment to dissuade offenders. The other is their danger to society and capacity to perpetrate yet more injury. Violent criminals are considered brutish and likely to commit further violence if left free so keeping them confined is more to the purpose of protecting society than punishing the offender.

There is another reason you missed which is summed up by several words: retribution, vengeance, payback, …..

Your presumption that justice is only a tool to protect society and influence human behavior ignores the belief that ones punishment should be proportional to the harm that one has done.

 

[BobG]

There is another reason you missed which is summed up by several words: retribution, vengeance, payback, …..

Your presumption that justice is only a tool to protect society and influence human behavior ignores the belief that ones punishment should be proportional to the harm that one has done.

The inverse fairness trait in humans?

It is experimentally true that humans will forfeit at least a small reward if they feel their counterpart is receiving an unfairly large reward.

In other words, two people in an experiment. They share a common reward which person A divides up. Person B can accept the share portioned out to him and both receive their portion of the reward or person B can reject the share portioned out to him and neither receive a reward. If person A (who may be a trusted agent) kept a huge portion of the reward and only gave person B a pittance, person B will reject the reward, deciding punishing person A is worth more than the reward he was given.

Of course, the rewards are always small due to budget constraints, so there's surely some point where even an unfairly small reward has to be big enough to forego punishing the counterpart, but that's hard to prove experimentally without an incredibly large budget.

In regards to the tangible rewards, the punishment is irrational, even for small rewards, since person B is also punishing himself. But the intangible benefits of punishing unfairness must be worth the amount person B is giving up, since people will consistently forego small rewards in order to punish the unfair person.

Unless person B gets to leave person A feedback, even indirectly. If person B can write nasty comments on an index card, then person B will accept the unfair reward. (Which means if you want to be unfair to your friends or customers, always provide an e-mail address that they can send nasty comments to - and then just delete all the e-mails you receive.)

Whether rational or not, there is some satisfaction in punishing people for things you perceive as wrong. And, humans being a mix of the rational and irrational, wanting things such as retribution, vengeance, and payback is perfectly normal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is another reason you missed which is summed up by several words: retribution, vengeance, payback, …..

Your presumption that justice is only a tool to protect society and influence human behavior ignores the belief that ones punishment should be proportional to the harm that one has done.

While I am certain that it has its influences in our legal system vengeance is not what a Criminal Court is there to mete out. If one wishes to be "pa[id]back" one may sue in civil court for damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.

 

[BobG]

While I am certain that it has its influences in our legal system vengeance is not what a Criminal Court is there to mete out. If one wishes to be "pa[id]back" one may sue in civil court for damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.

I think you have it backwards.

Civil court requires a person to correct whatever damage has been done - usually by giving the victim enough money to fix the problem themselves.

Criminal court hands out punishments that have no effect on the victims' lives other than some emotional satisfaction.

As to the purpose of criminal courts - that's a highly subjective opinion that varies from person to person. Some people would say the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reward people for committing crimes by giving them better tools - such as education.

A little like the debate between the two rich guys in the movie "Trading Places" where they toss their white middle class employee into the ghetto and replace him with a black criminal from the ghetto. One of the rich guys bet that behavior was solely dependent on one's environment, that the criminal would become respectable and the white collar employee would descend into crime. The other rich guy said a person's behavior was solely dependent on their character, that the criminal would still be a criminal even in a better environment and the white collar employee would rise above his ghetto surroundings.

I can't remember who won the bet, but according to the second guy, giving a common criminal a better education would just create a Bernie Madoff, so the idea of rehab has some limitations. (And I wonder what type of rehab program would even be appropriate for someone like Blagojevich?)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think you have it backwards.

Civil court requires a person to correct whatever damage has been done - usually by giving the victim enough money to fix the problem themselves.

Criminal court hands out punishments that have no effect on the victims' lives other than some emotional satisfaction.

Criminal Court only handles punishment of those things which are considered crimes against society as a whole. Even murder, for example, while only directly affecting specific individuals has a wider impact on society as a whole, especially if it goes unpunished. While some people may feel that it is a form of vengeance that is perhaps because it is the only vengeance they will know and not because it is the actual purpose of the punishment.

Civil Court on the other hand deals with the grievances of individuals and goes specifically towards an attempt to correct the damage done to those individuals. It deals in personal justice as opposed to general justice and is actually far closer in principle to the concept of revenge than criminal prosecution. Indeed people quite frequently attempt to get their revenge on someone by suing them since the criminal courts are not interested in personal feelings and opinions on what constitutes injustice or what damage has been done to an individual unless it is considered damaging to society at large as well.

For instance if I purchase property from an individual and fail to pay them for it I will not be held responsible by a criminal court. It is the responsibility of the injured party to seek personal redress in civil court. On the other hand if I make a habit of purchasing property from persons and not paying them I may be charged criminally for fraud now that my behavior has turned into something that is threatening to society as a whole.

 

[Jack21222]

While I am certain that it has its influences in our legal system vengeance is not what a Criminal Court is there to mete out. If one wishes to be "pa[id]back" one may sue in civil court for damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.

Blago hurt every man, woman, and child in this country. He simply doesn't have enough money to pay everybody more than a penny or so. This is far below the level of damage he caused.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I've changed my mind. I think he should do public service. I think he should be required to join the Army, as a private, and be the person they send out to make sure the minefield is really clear, that they really got the sniper, and to check that no, that gizmo isn't booby trapped. After 14 years of this, provided he's still alive, maybe, just maybe, then he's paid his debt to the country.

 

[turbo]

I've changed my mind. I think he should do public service. I think he should be required to join the Army, as a private, and be the person they send out to make sure the minefield is really clear, that they really got the sniper, and to check that no, that gizmo isn't booby trapped. After 14 years of this, provided he's still alive, maybe, just maybe, then he's paid his debt to the country.

Yay! We pay for food, uniforms, etc, just like in jail, but maybe we get something in exchange.