Too Rich for Jail:
Manafort Case: Sentence Disparity
By Quinton Reed
Sentence Disparity
Idiomized, you may hear the term as a “slap on the wrist”. As an adjective, a justice system might be described as “two-tiered” or “hybrid”; a lawyer may be accused of upholding “double standards”. These phrases are used to describe situations of sentencing disparity. Sentencing disparity is defined as: “a form of unequal treatment that is often of unexplained cause and is at least incongruous, unfair and disadvantaging in consequence”.
Across the Spectrum
Sentencing disparity is rampant in the US Judicial system. Discriminatory sentencing in the courtrooms occur on the basis of gender, race, immigration status, religion, sexuality, and economic status. For the sake of providing thorough commentary, this article focuses specifically on classism. Particularly how obvious it was in the most recent case of Paul Manafort. That is to say, the last sentencing on Manafort’s case–especially as compared to other, similar cases–and the attitude surrounding that ruling–is intrinsic in the discussion of sentencing disparity on basis of class.
The Price of Freedom
It isn’t a matter of one or two set of statistics that correlates sentence severity and economic status; it’s an epidemic. A study conducted by The Brookings Institution’s Adam Looney and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ Nicholas Turner was enlightening . The statistics revealed that boys who grew up in the bottom tenth of income distribution were 20 times more likely to be in prison. Both researchers were not only economists, but also used to work for the Treasury Department. This position provided plenty of research not only on prisoners’ incomes before imprisonment, but also the incomes of their parents.
Looney and Turner
The Looney and Turner conclusions draw a direct correlation to income and incarceration. Additionally, there is the cyclical nature of the relationship, as income remains largely unchanged and low-income prisoners are most likely to be repeatedly incarcerated. Also, repeat offenders are usually punished more harshly than first time offenders due to the “recidivism” part of the laws related to repeat offenders. In cases of violent and severe crimes, the recidivist premium makes perfect sense. However, there are multiple instances where the premium severely and negatively impacts the poorer populations.
Fined For Being Poor
One great example is traffic tickets. Traffic tickets produce significant revenue; cities near St. Louis have reported up 40 percent of their revenue comes from traffic tickets alone. Most people, of course, don’t directly experience imprisonment due to a traffic ticket. However, traffic tickets can be very expensive. While people with means typically pay the fines, those without the ability to pay may find themselves in jail due to the crime of poverty. The consequences of the inability to pay court fines among lower-income populations is staggering. Over four million people in California do not have valid driver’s licenses due to unpaid fees.
Bail System Punishes The Poor
To make matters worse, cash bail punishes the poor and directly benefits the rich. Those that can pay cash bail get to go home and await their trial. While a poor defendant is forced to wait in jail until the day of their trial. The disparity is obvious. The injustice so obvious that several states (California, New Jersey, Arizona) have already rendered the system obsolete. However, while even a cursory glance indicates obvious discrimination, a deeper examination reveals a layer of issues.
For Example
For example, the people who cannot afford to pay bail while awaiting trial are at risk of losing their homes, children, jobs, and lives due to their detainment. So much for the illusion of blind justice, and the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”. Furthermore, according to this study, people who fail to come up with bail are more likely to be found guilty at trial. In fact, 90 percent of people who fail to post bail go on to prison. For some, this is due to them making a guilty plea in hopes of being sentenced to lesser time behind bars.
A Lawyer Makes A Difference
Not only is a wealthy criminal more likely to pay cash bail, they can also afford the best lawyers and legal defense that only money can buy. With the right lawyer, an accused person can navigate the vast grey areas of our laws and come out on the other side clean and blameless. One method a rich criminal may get out of bail without directly paying a cent is to direct their lawyer to collect securities from their portfolio for their amount of bail. Even if this person did not have a securities portfolio, they could choose to lend a portfolio from a bail bonds company and get a 10 percent loan.
“Better People”
Settling out of court is another avenue not typically available to those without financial means. Settling out of court is also a method typically used by wealthy and famous people. Donald Trump, is a prime example. Victims of a crime may be willing to drop charges for the correct price. If that doesn’t work, there is always intimidation or blackmail available to the accused person via monetary incentive. Furthermore, sympathy for the wealthy, as in the case of “affluenza teen” Ethan Couch, is not a new occurrence. Wealth is often equated with success, and financial success–in a capitalistic society–wealth is perceived as desirable and even admirable. People who are wealthy are typically seen as “better” people morally, even if their wealth is acquired through immoral means.
Speaking of Manafort
On March 13th, Paul Manafort’s first prison sentence was nearly doubled from four years to a total of seven and a half. This may sound like good news, but it’s still far from what is deserved. Consider the charges of which he was found guilty; five counts of false income tax returns, one count of failure to report foreign bank or financial assets, and two counts of bank fraud. His initial sentence was less than a quarter of what prosecutors recommended. A leniency to such a high degree wouldn’t be granted to someone of lower-income with a drug conviction.
Millionaire Perks
To put it more simply, white-collar crimes have a much shorter median sentencing than other crimes. White collar crimes are rarely committed by lower-income criminals. In fact most white-collar crimes serve to increase the wealth of the already typically well off. Paul Manafort may have gotten a ridiculously light sentence for his crimes, but still, he has received the longest sentence of anyone convicted in the Mueller probe.
Presidential Opinion
President Trump has told the media many times he feels “very bad” for Manafort. In fact, Trump states he has not dismissed the possibility of pardon for his former campaign manager. Being wealthy enough and well-connected enough can result in a sentence 25% of what mandatory sentencing guidelines recommend, as in Manafort’s case.
Cries Of Too Harsh
Manafort supporters called his sentence “too harsh”. How can such a sentence be “too harsh” ? The man was convicted of a series of crimes going back decades. Judge Ellis in his sentencing of Manafort ignored Manafort’s decades long career of witness tampering, bank fraud, false tax returns, and money laundering. In fact, Judge Ellis categorized Manafort’s criminal activity as just a slip in an “otherwise blameless life”. Wealth, and ties to a billionaire president has its perks in our justice system.
