Crime and inexplicable punishment

July 1, 2006

I’d love to hear a rational explanation for this.

A New Orleans judge sentenced three people who looted liquor from a grocery store after Hurricane Katrina to 15 years in prison, saying he wanted to send a message.

They were convicted of attempting to leave the grocery with 27 bottles of liquor and wine, six cases of beer and one case of wine coolers, six days after Katrina made landfall. Little, McGowen and Pearson each testified that they were not looting, but they offered conflicting accounts of matters such as who drove to the store.

Just to be clear, looting is bad. After Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, it was a real problem in a number of areas, and I certainly believe those who get caught stealing after a natural disaster are guilty of a crime and should be held accountable.

But while these three who took from a grocery store are going to be behind bars for 15 years, Jeralyn noted that two men who were caught in a bribery scheme in Mississippi after Katrina were sentenced to one year behind bars.

Steal from a grocery store after a disaster, get a 15-year sentence from a judge who says he wants to “send a message” about looting. Steal from taxpayers after the same disaster, get a one-year sentence? Does this make any sense?

No, it makes no sense. It sounds like Les Miserables.

  • In Bush’s America, it makes perfect sense. Own a business, rip off the taxpayer and get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, if you’re poor (a crime itself these days) and dispossesed and commit a crime that neatly fits into the narrative of national disaster, you get sent up the river for a long, long time.

    Makes sense to me.

  • Even the Dandy Duke Cunningham got a mere 10 years for taking 2.4 million in bribes!

    Does this mean that stealing a few billion dollars should get, several public executions so brutal the devil itself would vomit in disgust?

  • It doesn’t make sense, but there are a few reasons this happens.

    Fraud can be harder to prosecute than crimes such as looting, as the crimes may be more complicated and therefore more difficult to prove in a court of law.

    Fraudsters can often afford a much better legal defence than common criminals, because they have more money.

    Frausters and their con-man skills assist them in hiding their crimes, and lying to prosecutors and judges.

    The general public see crimes like fraud and embezzlment, particularly from the government, as less threatening to them personally than more visceral crimes like theft or assault.

  • I hope, Dillon, that you didn’t present your post as any sort of excuse for this crime against the law.

    Anatole France had it perfectly right when he said that ““The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” The French have understood irony a looooong time.

  • Tom Cleaver, I didn’t intend it as an excuse, but as an explanation. My point was that you see injustices like this because it is much easier to make an example of someone that lacks the ability or financial means to defend themselves.

    I really enjoy reading The Carpetbagger Report, one of the main reasons being the quality of the discussion that goes on in the Comments section. I try to contribute from time to time, but honestly I struggle to express myself sometimes. Please bear with me.

  • CB – I have to disagree with you somewhat on this statement “Just to be clear, looting is bad. After Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, it was a real problem in a number of areas, and I certainly believe those who get caught stealing after a natural disaster are guilty of a crime and should be held accountable.”

    After befriending someone who went through Katrina and ended up having to loot a local store to provide food and water for herself and her young child I think that we need to be cautious about the level of the rhetoric. I realize that we’re dealing with essential vs. non-essential items. Technically my friend looted too and I would hate to see her get caught up in a make’em pay type of frenzy.

  • Dillon:

    Ireally asked that question in all good faith, and am glad to hear your answer.

    I fully agree with you that ” it is much easier to make an example of someone that lacks the ability or financial means to defend themselves”.

    A good example of that, which hasn’t received a lot of public notice, is the change this year in policy regarding enforcement for collection of taxes by the IRS. Previously, the IRS was directed to go after the “deep pockets,” the tax evaders where there was a likelihood of getting a substantial amount. Since “deep pockets tax evader” is another synonym for “Rich Bush supporter”, the Republicans in Congress saw their duty and did it: the enforcement budget of the IRS was cut substantially in the current year’s budget. The result was that the IRS couldn’t go after the Big Boys, who have lawyers, will make a fight of it, and cost the agency money from its enforcement budget. As a result, the IRS has changed its strategy to go after the “low end,” the people who owe less than $10,000 in back taxes, where the reason for the amount owing is more likely to be having received bad advice than a conscious attempt to evade. These people are far less likely to have access to tax lawyers (ever checked the hourly rate of a tax attorney, or the down payment to obtain their services?) Thus, the result is more of the Usual Republican Strategy: stick it to the non-rich.

    And yes, I have come to know all about this personally, having had a tax problem from the last “good year” I had in Hollywood (before finding out that the rumors were right about what happens to writers over 45 who hadn’t made them a bazillion dollars) before the production company I was a supervising producer at folded. The amount would likely not be sufficient to buy 30 minutes’ worth of small arms ammo for the next firefight in Pandora’s Box, and it would cost about as much as is owed to hire a lawyer to “negotiate”. And I have discovered that there are more than a few people in similar circumstances now in a similar situation.

    Anatole France was certainly right.

  • These looters didn’t have much to begin with, so I’m sure prison suits them just fine.

    Barbara Bush

  • Looting is the price you pay for stealing from the store.
    Profits are the rewards you get from stealing the store.

    27 bottles of liquor and wine, six cases of beer and one case of wine cooler earns 15 years

    Halliburton 06 Profits earned $2.48 bil

  • Above is a perfect example of another failed system in the USA, the so called justice system. Every infraction will be examined and every infraction will have a consequence if you are poor. If you are wealthy and entitled, most every every infraction will be ignored, and what is not ignored can be explained and forgiven.

  • Possibly the only time the “activist judge” tag actually applies. This should be overturned on appeal by any reasonable court.

    • Comments are closed.