I spent the first four and a half years of my legal career as a prosecutor. During that time frame, I had to prosecute various cases which were considered "victim sensitive." Crimes like assault, robbery, burglary, sexual assault, and vehicular manslaughter. In those cases, we were trained to always keep the victim, or family of the victim if they had died, informed throughout the case, and to always interview them in person to find out what their wishes were with regard to the defendant and his or her punishment.
They didn't completely control the case. For instance, if you had an assault charge and had lousy evidence with regard to something like intent, you may reduce the charge even if the victim wanted to see the defendant put away for a year. The defendant's background, case precedent, and most of all, your available evidence controlled the case, but you had to do your best to help the victim get what they felt would be a just result.
Some wanted to see the defendant locked up, others were fine if they just got some type of counseling, some just wanted an apology and still others just wanted their property back if it was a theft, there was no universal answer.
But here is one thing they never asked for; Mr. Prosecutor, I want them to be fired and banned for life from their chosen profession.
Now, if a person committed a crime that was linked with their occupation; let's say if a stockbroker stole from his clients, or if a dentist sexually abused a patient, then we would seek out some type of sanction that either suspended their employment, or eliminated it for life, and that, in my opinion makes sense.
But over the past week, as the Ray Rice case has now dragged on, members of the media, the general public, and even some elected officials, have called for everyone from Rice, Roger Goodell, and any NFL player that ever commits an act of domestic violence in the future to lose their job and never be allowed to have it again.
Let me be clear, Rice committed a horrific act of violence and his team had every right to terminate his contract. I also agree that unions can collectively bargain for certain penalties if their members break the law, and certain state licenses can be taken away from you if you are convicted of a felony.
These are all acceptable and common sanctions that can occur, and that employers have initiated against their employees for years. But what is new, and what I also think is dangerous is the reflexive action that people now feel the need to demand that when a person commits a crime, that in addition to being prosecuted by the state, they should be fired from employment as well. Even when the crime is completely unrelated to their job.
How did this become such a popular sentiment? Why do people completely unaffected by the crime of another person, feel the need to scream for the defendant's job to be taken away from them just because they committed a crime?
Is it because people aren't satisfied with the punishments that are doled out by the courts? Rice's deal, which will result in no jail time and a clean record, without question has angered a large segment of the public who believe that if they were put in similar circumstances, they would be facing jail time. Just as an aside, those people are wrong. The fact that Rice won't serve any jail time doesn't surprise me at all. I'm not saying it is right, but it is not a shocker to anyone that has either prosecuted or defended a domestic violence case when the victim expresses the type of sentiment that has come from Rice's wife, and where a defendant has a spotless record, as Rice has.
One thing that drives it is clearly some sort of envy. Because the more public the figure, the richer the defendant, the more you here the screed of "He should be fired for this!"
Are you telling me that the unrelenting campaign by the bulk of the sports media to banish Roger Goodell from pro football for life isn't due, in some part, to the fact that he made 44 million dollars last year?
And you don't have members of Congress binding together to demand that auto mechanics should be subjected to a zero tolerance rule when it comes to convictions of domestic violence related crimes. Right now it is just for NFL players.
By the way, whenever you hear the words "zero tolerance," you should worry. When you eliminate discretion and flexibility in punishments, you get ridiculous, and at times, unjust results.
You know those news stories you hear about 1st graders getting suspended for sexual harassment because they kissed a classmate on the cheek? That comes from zero tolerance policies. They are the fall back decision for politicians and administrators that want to appear tough on a particular issue, and since they require no thought to deliver, you get stupid results.
It is the job of the district attorneys to prosecute criminals, and for the courts to ensure that justice is served in criminal cases. When you read any state's penal code, and you look at the punishments available for certain offenses, you will not see "Firing from their job," or "Banishment form the defendant's chosen field of work" as available sanctions. Nor should they be.
The most ridiculous part of this new idea, if you can call it that, is that many of the same people; whether they are politicians, media members, or the faceless trolls on twitter, that believe in firing people who get charged with certain crimes; they are the same people that scream that the drug laws are too harsh, or that this country incarcerates too many of its citizens, and that rehabilitation of prisoners is a joke because no companies will hire them out of prison. So they want jobs for the people that get sent to prison when they commit a crime like robbery or burglary to support a drug habit, but they want you to fire other people when they commit domestic abuse and the state elects to give them counseling rather than decide to send them to the jails they decry. It is mindless hypocrisy of the highest order.
Whether or not a defendant keeps their job, or is allowed to work in their field should be determined by the employers who hire them. It will set a dangerous precedent if we allow Congress, the media, or the screaming on-line mobs on Twitter to determine who gets to keep their job and who gets fired after committing a crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment