With as much subtlety and sophistication as a sledgehammer, social media erupted after Felicity Huffman’s 14-day sentence was announced, with commenter after commenter saying her sentence was way too light. A rich, white woman only received two weeks in jail. The system must be corrupt! Well, the system is corrupt, but not because Huffman’s sentence was too light, but because it was too severe.
But wait, you might be saying, she only received a few weeks; how can that be too severe?
Her sentence is wrong for at least four reasons:
Our criminal justice system still has an unjust “jail-first” mentality. The default sentence for a first-time non-violent offender who accepted responsibility where no one suffered any loss should obviously be something other than incarceration. If that type of offender — with no aggravating factors — isn’t getting probation, then who is? The problem is that we are so tied to putting people in jail, even people we know will never do anything similar again, that our default is some prison. That’s wrong. It’s important to keep things in perspective: Huffman didn’t hurt anyone and it’s not altogether clear that paying someone to take a test should even be a federal crime in the first place.
Please take a look and let me know your thoughts.
Tanya McDowell. African-American mom living out of her car with her 5 year old son. She lied and used a friend's address to have her son attend a better public school in Norwalk, Conn instead of the public school he was to attend in Bridgeport, Conn. She was prosecuted an convicted for grand larceny (theft of education) and sentenced to FIVE YEARS in jail.
ReplyDeleteNow, tell me again how unjust it was for Felicity to get a 14-day sentence.
Dude, 14 days is probably a little light.
ReplyDeleteThere does need to be a deterrent, it is a crime. How about when you or somebody you love, has children applying to one of those schools who don't make it in because the spot went to somebody who paid a professional test taker to cheat.
I would think feeling victimized by a crooked system would be justified.
These schools are a golden ticket in life...it is no mistake that your law school features prominently on your biographical information.
If a diploma like that is of such value, and people want to cheat and bribe to get one, then that value needs to be protected by preventing dishonest means of obtaining it.
Then again, W went to Yale, and that didn't harm the value of the diploma there, so maybe I am wrong.
928
DeleteW became president of the United States. What have you done that makes you so smart?? Do tell!
9:19's comment is completely counterproductive. The fact that someone can point to a differently situated black defendant -- in what sounds like a state case from Connecticut alleging a different crime -- who received an unfair sentence does not mean that the white defendant should also receive an unfair sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether Ms. Huffman's sentence is fair, not whether others have been treated unfairly. People are treated unfairly in the criminal justice system every day. If those unfair sentences then become precedent for everyone else, then we have truly lost.
Yes, let’s stop and wring our hands that a rich white person has been sentenced to 14 days in prison.
ReplyDeleteThrow the book at her I say. 14 days? 14 years in prison!!!! And then tar and feather her when she gets out. Make her walk with a sign "I cheated a college" around her neck. Make her forfeit all her money. Ship her to Mexico. Take away her citizenship. Bar her from ever working for any company other than Taco Bell. Make her grown her own food in prison. Why do we pay for meals and medical services for prisoners anyway?
ReplyDeleteMake all of these penalties minimum mandatories so liberal Judges with Hispanic heritages do not wimp out and give her less time.
Make the penalties apply to her children and grandchildren, including incarceration when they turn 18 for 14 years.
It's time to get tough on crime.
Make the fourteen year sentence the absolute minimum for any crime committed in the United States.
Enough of this foolishness about supervised release and probation and home confinement. You know who uses home confinement? Sweden! And what wars have they ever won?
Enough is enough.
And also impose the same penalties for anyone who runs for the Presidency who says they were born in Hawaii when in fact they were born in Africa. And also impose the same penalties for anyone who runs for the Presidency who uses a personal email server for official business. And double the penalties for anyone who looses their emails from their personal server.
Do this and then we will be on the right track in the United States Of North Korea.
11:23
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely incorrect. Part of determining whether a sentence is fair or just is to look at what other similarly charged individuals have received as punishment. You cannot look at any one case in a vacuum.
The fact that someone who is African American and not famous received a substantially higher sentence for a similar offense, especially given our country's history, is a fair, some would say essential, comparison.
11:23 here again.
ReplyDeleteThe Tanya McDowell sentence sounded ridiculous so I googled it. Turns out, she took a five year plea deal to resolve both the larceny charge (for using the address to get her kid into a better school) AND ALSO to resolve a drug charge for selling cocaine in front of that same school. That sounds relevant to me.
So it is completely dishonest (or ignorant) to say that she was sentenced to five years for conduct even remotely similar to what Huffman was sentenced for.
But suppose for a minute that she was actually sentenced to five years for just the school fraud. It seems to be universally acknowledged that this would have been ridiculous and unjust. Why should our justice system promote injustice even further by using unfair sentences as a relevant data point for others (regardless of socioeconomic status).
"This case is about the convictions for the sale of narcotics to an undercover police officer," the judge said. "I think you understand that because that is really the essence of what has gotten you into the predicament you find yourself today."
ReplyDeletezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ReplyDeletecan you ever surprise me?
Post on Greg craig found not guilty. Comment "who cares he is white."
ReplyDeletePost on Chinese mar a lago liar/trespasser. Comment "if white she'd never be arrested."
Post here on Huffman. Comment "who cares she is white."
These comments are worthless. They lower the discourse on the blog. I dont mind the comments comparing to cases of similarly situated minorities, although it's hard to believe the attempt here in the huffman case was in good faith, as demonstrated by numerous commentators who took 2 seconds to see the cases are different.
but c'mon. The comments "who cares he/she is white" repeatedly posted on this blog are overtly racist. Clearly and obviously racist. No other way to read them.
DOM take a look at the comment by 1130 above. Im hoping you just missed it. But I like this blog, and racist nonsense like 1130 do not belong here.
9:44 are you that limited? My guess is that 9:30 was making the point that why are there no articles about the people of color in this district getting hammered with decades in prison. The history of our criminal legal system is that there are only “problems” when rich white people are treated like people of color. Pointing that out is not racist,
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way if this is where you go for “ discourse” you are truly lost.
I Agree with 8:34.
ReplyDeleteWhether its Felicity Huffman's draconian 14-day sentence, the denial of bond for Jeffrey Epstein, the excessive use of force in the arrest of Roger Stone, etc., it seems as though there is an outcry only when those things happen to rich white people. The point made by several commentators here, including me, is not that those things should happen to those people or that it is ok for those things to happen to those people. The point is that those things have been happening (on an even greater scale) pretty regularly to poor people and people of color for a long time. So I don't honestly disagree with many of DOM's editorials in a vacuum. My bigger gripe is: where was your well-connected voice DOM when those things were happening to people of color.
1032
ReplyDeleteDOM wrote that alex acosta was unfairly criticized. Does that qualify as blogging about a "person of color" treated unfairly? Need to update my racial scorecard to know if that "counts"--so then he might be allowed to blog about a white person. Thanks!
10:00 nice try
ReplyDeleteDOM wrote that Alex Acosta was unfairly criticized for the lenient treatment given to Jeffrey Epstein. The crux of his comments were that the punishment given to Epstein was fair and just. As far as I know, Acosta has not been the subject of a criminal prosecution.