Aside from the intrinsic dangers and injustices of arguing for
immunity for high-level government officials who commit felonies (such
as illegal eavesdropping, obstruction of justice, torture and other war
crimes), it's the total selectivityof the rationale underlying that case which makes it so corrupt. Defenders of Bush officials sing in unison: We
shouldn't get caught up in the past. We shouldn't be driven by
vengeance and retribution. We shouldn't punish people whose motives in
committing crimes weren't really that bad.
There are
countries in the world which actually embrace those premises for all of
their citizens, and whose justice system consequently reflects a
lenient approach to crime and punishment. The United States is not one
of those countries. In
fact, for ordinary citizens (the ones invisible and irrelevant to Ruth
Marcus, Stuart Taylor, Jon Barry and David Broder), the exact opposite
is true:
Homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100
A homeless man robbed a Louisiana bank and took a $100 bill. After feeling remorseful, he surrendered to police the next day. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
Roy
Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in
December 2007. He approached the teller with one of his hands under his
jacket and told her that it was a robbery.
The teller handed Brown three stacks of bill but he
only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to
her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.
The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way.
Brown told the police he needed the money to stay at the detox center and had no other place to stay and was hungry.
In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.
Under federal law, "the simple possession of just 5 grams of crack cocaine, the weight of about two sugar packets, subjects a defendant to a mandatory five-year prison term."
In Alabama, the average sentence for marijuana possession -- an offense
for which most Western countries almost never imprison their citizens
-- is 8.4 years. Until recently, the state of Florida "impose[d]
mandatory-minimum sentences of 25 years for illegally carrying a
pillbox-worth of drugs such as Oxycontin" and still imposes shockingly Draconian mandatory sentences even for marijuana offenses.
Our political class has embraced mandatory minimum sentencing schemes as a way to eliminate mercy and sentencing flexibility
for ordinary people who break the law (as opposed to Bush officials who
do). The advocacy group Families Against Mandatory Minimums details
just some of the grotesque injustices here, including decades of imprisonment for petty drug dealing which even many judges who are forced to impose the sentences
find disgraceful. Currently in the U.S., close to 7,000 people are
serving sentences of 25 years to life under our merciless
"three-strikes-and-out" laws -- which the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional in a 5-4 ruling -- including half for nonviolent offenses and many for petty theft.
As I've noted many times before, the United States imprisons more of its population than any other country on the planet, and most astoundingly, we account for less than 5% of the world's population yet close to 25% of the world's prisoners are located in American prisons. As The New York Times' Adam Liptak put it in an excellent and thorough April, 2008 article,
revealing how self-absorbed and hypocritical are the cries for mercy,
understanding and "moving on" being made by media stars and political
elites on behalf of lawbreaking Bush officials:
Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely
distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are
locked up for crimes - from writing bad checks to using drugs - that
would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in
particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in
other nations. . . .
Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing.
It used to be that Europeans came to the United States to study its prison systems. They came away impressed.
"In
no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in
the United States," Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured American
penitentiaries in 1831, wrote in "Democracy in America."
No more.
"Far from serving as a model for the world, contemporary America is viewed with horror,"
James Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale, wrote last year
in Social Research. "Certainly there are no European governments
sending delegations to learn from us about how to manage prisons."
Prison
sentences here have become "vastly harsher than in any other country to
which the United States would ordinarily be compared," Michael Tonry, a leading authority on crime policy, wrote in "The Handbook of Crime and Punishment."
Indeed, said Vivien Stern, a research fellow at the prison studies center in London, the American incarceration rate has made the United States "a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach" . . . .
The American character - self-reliant, independent, judgmental - also plays a role.
"America is a comparatively tough place, which puts a strong emphasis on individual responsibility," Whitman of Yale wrote. "That attitude has shown up in the American criminal justice of the last 30 years."
And that's to say nothing of the brutal and excessive tactics used by our increasingly militarized police state (Digby's writing on the use of tasers is indispensable) and the inhumane conditions that characterize our highly profitable prison state.
Under
all circumstances, arguing that high political officials should be
immunized from prosecution when they commit felonies such as illegal
eavesdropping and torture would be both destructive and wrong [not to
mention, in the case of the latter crimes, a clear violation of a treaty which the U.S. (under Ronald Reagan) signed and thereafter ratified].
But what makes it so much worse, so much more corrupted, is the fact
that this "ignore-the-past-and-forget-retribution" rationale is invoked
by our media elites only for a tiny, special class of people -- our
political leaders -- while the exact opposite rationale ("ignore their
lame excuses, lock them up and throw away the key") is applied to
everyone else. That, by definition, is what a "two-tiered system of
justice" means and that, more than anything else, is what characterizes (and sustains) deeply corrupt political systems.
That's the two-tiered system which, for obvious reasons, our political
and media elites are now vehemently arguing must be preserved.
* * * * *
See also this post from earlier today on the superb 60 Minutes report on expanding West Bank settlements.