January 21, 2007

• It's worth briefly noting that Ex-Congressman Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison.  To me, this is egregiously low.  If ever there were a crime that cries out for a mandatory minimum, being a public official who accepts bribes is it.  Still more amazing is that the government recommended 27 months, and the district judge went a bit higher.  I don't know what the applicable guidelines range is for Ney's offense, but I have to wonder whether not increasing his sentence still higher is "unreasonable" after United States v. Booker.

  If there is an argument for leniency, it is that Ney cooperated and might help the Feds further their investigation into other crooked politicians.  But I hate how the terms "cooperation" and "acceptance of responsibility" (to use the lingo from the sentencing guidelines) get thrown around in these types of cases.  Ney didn't wake up one morning and turn himself in.  He waited until he knew he was caught and it was sufficiently certain he would face jail time, then sought to mitigate the damage.  So there's no reason to say he's less morally culpable for cooperating.  That leaves the possibility that we get useful information out of people like Ney, and so we need a carrot to make them cooperate.  But the flip side is that going lighter on these people lessens deterrence to begin with.  If people know that if they're caught, maybe they can cooperate and wind up with 30 months, then they are more likely to risk taking bribes, rather than if they know they will certainly receive 20 years. 

  Adjusting sentences like Ney's to encourage cooperation varies the probability of detection.  Arguably imposing a mandatory minimum decreases the probability of detection, since there's less cooperation by those who are caught.  Then you face a choice -- is it better to have a typical sentence of 30 months, with a 20% rate of detection, or a 20 year norm but a rate of detection only 5%?

  I don't know.  Obviously a higher rate of detection is good, because it means less corruption in government.  But there's something very unsatisfying about lower sentences to accomplish it.  Particularly because I think the rate of detection could be hard to measure -- so you couldn't really prove to yourself that the lower sentences were actually resulting in a greater percentage of people being caught.  (Plus, even if there is a higher rate of detection, do lower sentences mean that there are more total offenders?  I guess that loops back into the function for rate of detection.)

  Anyway - so those are some fragmented thoughts; basically, I think Ney's sentence should have been much, much higher.

  • 12:29 am
  • 1 Comment