America’s government shutdown has provided a plethora of fodder for media outlets seeking to score points with select segments of their audience. Conservative news outlets have run repeated stories on the closure of parks and war memorials while more liberal reporting has focused on the loss of social programs providing a safety net to the neediest. In past government shutdowns, the terms "essential" and "nonessential" were used to draw the distinction between the two groups of workers and the services they provide. Now, the classifications have been changed to "excepted" and "not excepted," with excepted workers identified as those "who are performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," among other functions. Many of the stories reported have centered on the seemingly whimsical nature of the classifications. But while the media reports on how the shutdown is depriving children of cancer treatments as the House gym remains open due to being deemed essential, a larger element of the shutdown story has gone unreported.
The government shutdown has left the supposedly essential function of the U.S. federal courts unscathed. One simplistic and highly jingoistic explanation for this might be the essential nature of justice in the U.S. The truth about what passes for justice in federal courts, however, has reduced “justice” to an Orwellian notion much in the same way that U.S. sponsored “freedom” abroad has come to represent the indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians. Not to mention the torture of those unfortunate enough to be labeled as the enemy of America’s peculiar conception of freedom.
America’s archipelago of federal courts remains unfettered by the government shutdown
Regardless of one’s take on the purported indispensability of U.S. federal courts, it is undeniable that the government has taken steps to ensure that the shutdown does not in any way impede the indispensable flow of cases through the system. So while a variety of essential services are deemed to be nonessential, the government’s various legal assaults against the people continue without interruption. America’s cynical choice to suspend select social programs while allowing the courts to operate unfettered is perhaps best explained by the Mahatma Gandhi’s quote, “Action expresses priorities.”
Mahatma Gandhi recognized how to best ascertain a government’s priorities
Despite the shutdown, this past week saw the usual procession of overhyped prosecutions in federal courts throughout the U.S. These largely valueless cases usually involve non-violent “offenses” and are typically pursued mainly to enhance the resumes of prosecutors. They have become standard fare in U.S. federal courts and provide no meaningful service other than enriching the prison-industrial complex, yet are now delineated as being essential.
Limitless resources are flushed into the prison-industrial complex while a variety of social programs are suspended due to budgetary concerns
Kwame Kilpatrick was given an incredible 28 year sentence for a variety of non-violent, white collar offenses
The aforementioned sentencing factors raise serious questions about Kilpatrick’s sentence. It could be argued that wildly disproportionate sentences like this do anything but “promote respect for the law.” Similarly, given the fact that Kilpatrick is nearly certain to never again hold public office, deterrence and public protection are not relevant issues.
America has made its budgetary priorities clear during the government shutdown
Kilpatrick’s sentencing probably could not have come at a worse time for the defense. With Detroit in bankruptcy, he became an easy scapegoat for the government, allowing them to deflect attention away from decades of failed policy and other deeply ingrained problems. And much in the way that low-level mortgage brokers are routinely blamed for the nation’s housing crisis when sentenced in federal court, while those at the top of the mortgage fraud food chain continue to go unpunished, he was sentenced as if he singlehandedly brought down the city of Detroit.
Was Kilpatrick made a scapegoat for Detroit’s fiscal woes?
Incredibly, Kilpatrick’s sentence could have been longer. Federal Sentencing Guidelines actually called for a sentence of 30 years to life for the former mayor’s non-violent offenses, but the government asked for a sentence of only 28 years in their sentencing memorandum. As is so often the case, the government’s desired punishment was summarily rubberstamped. USDJ Nancy Edmunds had some choice words for Kilpatrick before the imposition of sentence.
USDJ Nancy Edmunds followed the government’s script to the letter and imposed the exact amount of time requested by government prosecutors
“Mr. Kilpatrick was a larger-than-life character who lived the high life as mayor,” Edmunds said. “He chose to waste his talents for personal aggrandizement and enrichment. He hosted lavish parties. He accepted cash tributes. He loaded the city payroll with family and friends.” While defendants are entitled to be sentenced pursuant to the facts of their case, superfluous references to “lifestyle” have become standard fare at sentencing hearings.
Edmunds continued her harangue by noting that “He had an affair with his chief of staff, lied about it, and went to jail for perjury. The defense wants me to acknowledge his accomplishments as mayor. That is what he was elected to do. The government has asked for a sentence of 28 years. I believe this is in fact what his sentence should be.” Interestingly, despite her obvious fealty to the government and wholesale acceptance of its recommendation for sentencing, Edmunds, a former government prosecutor, was repeatedly referred to as a “fair” and “very thoughtful” judge in various fawning press accounts.
The federal prosecutors on Kilpatrick’s case wasted no time before crowing about their accomplishment. AUSA Mark Chutkow called it “one of the most significant cases of public corruption across the country at a time when Detroit was vulnerable.” Chutkow continued, “Mr. Kilpatrick systematically exploited his public office. There has been no acceptance of any responsibility. No contrition, no remorse.”
AUSA Mark Chutkow grossly exaggerated Kilpatrick’s offenses, padding his own resume in the process
Chutkow’s mention of contrition and remorse, or lack thereof, is common in such cases. Kilpatrick, like so many other federal defendants who opt for trial, was placed in a problematic position at sentencing. Contrition is typically sought by judges and prosecutors, but a defendant who believes themselves to be wrongly convicted and who is just beginning their appellate process cannot go into court and admit guilt while their conviction is under review. Thus, the net effect is that such a defendant is unduly punished for not assuming a prone position at sentencing.
One of Kilpatrick’s lawyers, Harold Z. Gurewitz, who argued for a sentence of no more than 15 years, claimed in court that Mr. Kilpatrick was being unfairly targeted as a scapegoat for Detroit’s insolvency, with people trying to “send him out with the sins of the city over the last 50 years.” The sentence, he said in an interview given after sentencing, was “tougher than necessary and stiffer than some people get for violent crimes.”
Defense lawyer Harold Gurewitz was given a nearly impossible task of trying to mitigate Kilpatrick’s sentence
While Kilpatrick’s sentencing hearing may have been one of the most egregious examples of misplaced priorities, it was only one of many such matters being zealously pursued with a loathsome disregard for monetary constraints by a supposedly budgetarily-challenged U.S. government. Kilpatrick’s sentence sends a clear message that there is no shortage of funds to prosecute, sentence and imprison the accused. It lends further credence to the adage that in America, despite dire fiscal concerns, there are always unlimited funds for wars and prison.
Indeed, while the government shutdown and associated fiscal woes continued, a steady parade of high profile, low value prosecutions continued to flow through the federal courts. The prosecutors pursing these matters are tightly focused on doing god’s work, eradicating evil and padding their resumes with cases chosen for their publicity value. In their twisted Manichean world view, there is nothing more important on which government money could be spent.
The government’s media myrmidons, who have spent countless days discussing the shutdown, also fail to raise of the issue of why there is a critical lack of resources to aid the needy, but an endless sea of cash with which they can be prosecuted. Then again, it has been a long time since the American media has posed difficult, unscripted questions to a presidential administration. The government’s prioritization of prosecution and imprisonment above social programs is certain to escape meaningful scrutiny for the foreseeable future.
The shutdown’s exposure of the elevation of criminal justice over social justice calls to mind the Mark Twain quote about the relationship between schools and prisons. “Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten the dog.”
Mark Twain recognized the zero sum relationship between schools and prisons; the more you have of one, the less you need of the other
Attributing specific results of the shutdown to one political party or the other misses what these results affirm. Having the entire mechanism of what passes for federal justice continue unabated along with requiring military recruiters and drug enforcement agents to report for duty, while sick children go untreated and food inspectors and off-duty firefighters are sent home, speaks volumes about the current priorities of the U.S. federal government.
(Originally published at Online Publishing Company, www.onlinepublishingcompany.info)