Interesting discussion in the NYT this morning about sentencing triggered by the commuting of Libby’s sentence. It appears that people are treating it not like a one-off for a political hack but an act of governance which actually has some substantive value in a broader context:
The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses. “It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”
While there are those who saw the entire prosecution as a political event (aka tin hat conspiracy theorists…and Jay…whose server is down at the moment…) (Ed:…coincidence? I think not…), it is a proper think to prosecute high government officials who lie and obstruct justice in that it is a corruption of justice itself even if the liar is so foolish as to be lying about something ultimately of less consequence than he thought at the time. Crime control and other forms of strict interpretation of these sorts of things are traditionally hallmarks of conservatism. These values are more often expressed in the sentence than the conviction so it is something of surprise to have a conservative President justify the giving of a free-pass to a friend on the basis of sentencing theory.
This speaks to the theory of justice, something that is oddly personal. I say oddly in that there are few movements based around the principles of how we punish each other as a community as there are political parties around economic and social principles. Yet it is through punishment more than any other element of the law that we establish what is right.
So, using the illustration of Libby but perhaps leaving out the glorification of celebrity double standards (unless that is key to your theory of social good), what does this commuting of the sentence say to you? Are judges actually excessive or insufficiently harsh in what they do? And what does that opinion connect to for you as you go about your life?