When news first broke that Chicago Illinois police officer Anthony Abbate only received probation for assaulting a female bartender half his size after she refused to serve him because he was too drunk and had assaulted a bar patron earlier that day, it wasn’t surprising to many.
After all, while Abbate’s case has caught the national spotlight because of the disturbing video that brought it to the public eye, it is but an illustration of a common problem with the criminal justice system when police officers are the criminals instead of the accusers… his case is just one of many this month where officers got what would, by normal standards, be considered nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Here are a few of those, for example:
A Santa Clara County California deputy who fell asleep at the wheel of his police cruiser and killed two professional bicyclists was sentenced to 4 months of electronic monitoring, in which he can still work and run errands, and 20 weeks of community service after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of vehicular manslaughter even as the victim’s families begged for at least a short jail sentence.
Even then, the deputy’s lawyer complained that his client’s sentence was harsh just because he was a deputy?
A Greeley Colorado police officer who was fired after he and his son started a brutal bar fight that left one man with an injury to his face that required 20 stitches not only plead down the charges against him to a single misdemeanor on a deferred sentence that will clear his record in a year, but was also rehired… not only that, he was also promoted back up to his original supervisory sergeant’s rank.
A Detroit Michigan police officer was allowed to plead down what was originally a potential life sentence worth of felony charges related to a brutal domestic violence incident to a single misdemeanor charge which may allow him to serve no jail time whatsoever, or 90 days in jail at most. He originally was facing charges such as torture, assault with intent to murder, and felony firearms charges.
His estranged girlfriend at the time testified at a preliminary hearing that the officer hit her leg with a baseball bat, then he straddled her after she fell and choked her. At that point, she claimed, the officer fired three shots near the left side of her head and told her “I will fucking kill you.” He then proceded to put the barrel of the gun inside her mouth and then to the side of her head before finally letting her go.
A Kansas City Missouri police officer was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of disturbing the peace for beating a man so badly during a bar fight that he was left on the floor bleeding from both sides of his head and was in a coma for days afterward. Unable to work after that, he committed suicide a few months later, which prosecutors cited as the reason why they let him plead down to such a lesser charge.
The police chief of New Richmond Ohio was given a plea deal by prosecutors that allowed him to avoid 5 charges which included allegations that he stalked a 15 year old girl. Ultimately he was only sentenced to 2 years of non-reporting probation for obstructing official business and dereliction of duty for failing to arrest a sexual assault suspect.
A Sandy Oregon Police Officer was sentenced to one day in jail and two years probation in a plea deal over charges that he took confiscated drivers licenses and gave them to teenage girls that he was involved with. Not only did the deal allow him to avoid potential identity theft charges, it also kept details about his potentially illicit relationships with minors from being detailed in court.
Not to mention that this plea deal was delayed in a strange twist earlier this year when his own lawyer was subpoenaed in court for his testimony in a civil excessive force wrongful death case against that officer who had shot an unarmed and badly burned accident victim to death in 2005.
So, it’s hardly unexpected that yet another police officer would be given preferential treatment in court.
But what caught my attention was some of the analysis afterward about the reasoning given by the judge in the face of public outrage over the wrist-slap of a sentence. His answer to the storm of criticism over the light sentence is that this sentence was within the guidelines for an offense of this nature.
While this is most likely the case, it still misses something crucial. Specifically, it ignores the same thing that all these other light sentences ignore, that being the scope of harm done when a police officer commits a crime.
Consider the words of the victim in the Abbate case:
She’s no longer that fearless person, she said. She dreads being alone, she has trouble trusting people, and she fears the police.
“I haven’t worked anywhere. I’m afraid something else will happen,” she told the Tribune. “If I ever go back to bartending, the owners would have to be there all the time. I’m not comfortable working by myself.”
She says it’s not quite rational to fear the police, but she can’t help feeling anxious when she’s out and about with her husband and child. She is afraid they’ll get pulled over for something. Afraid the cops will recognize her. Afraid they’ll be friends of Abbate’s.
“I have a fear of the police. I know they don’t want to hurt me, but I have a fear,” she said. “I can’t explain it.”
When a typical criminal commits a crime, the scope of the harm done by that crime tends to be limited. However, when police officers commit crimes, the harm done radiates further out and affects far more people while also causing more harm to the specific victims than if that same crime would have been committed by a regular citizen.
After all, if Abbate was not a cop, that bartender would not be as debilitated by fear of all civilians as she is now by her fear of the police. That fear is based on the realization that police have much more power to cause harm than civilians… which seems to be something that judges and prosecutors miss whenever they try to justify light sentences by comparing them to what a normal person would have faced on similar allegations.
On a federal level, and in many states, there are laws that add enhancements to sentences when the people involved are members of gangs or when their crimes are motivated by prejudices such as racism. Perhaps it’s time to consider an enhancement for police crimes that would force reluctant prosecutors and judges to enact sentences that match the scope of harm done by police offices when they commit crimes.
After all, not only do the police inflict more harm on their victims when they commit criminal acts than would otherwise be done, they also damage police relations with their communities and increase distrust in the government within the community at large… especially when all they get is a slap on the wrist for their crimes.
Shouldn’t the punishment fit the amount of harm done by the crime?
This is really a great post, and there is so much you could say in response. It made me think of this:
Two universal factors come into play in a justice system in the sentencing phase of a case, and they are mercy and judgment. What we are witnessing in all the referenced cases is the fact that mercy is highly favored in sentencing when the defendant is a member of law enforcement and far outweighs judgment. The scales of justice are supposed to be balanced, and they become severely misaligned when the defendant is a peace officer. Just look at the rhetoric when an officer is sentenced. I read all the articles and here’s a summary: “he’s earned his way back” “had 20 yrs excellent service to the city” “since the incident has done an excellent job” “not a bad person, just had done something bad” “give a second chance” See how tipped the scales are? They are practically falling over.
When an officer breaks the law his crime is considered as separate from his person. His crime does not identify him. His membership in law enforcement identifies him. He’s a good person who’s done a bad thing. He’s not a bad person, and therefore he deserves mercy. Good people have no need of judgment. And, what makes him a good person? Being in law enforcement. This is all he needs to be good. His crime is incidental, a mistake, a poor choice, an accident even.
Another person, not law enforcement, that commits a crime is identified with his crime. He is defined by it. The commission of the crime makes him a bad person, and therefore he deserves judgment. Mercy is inappropriate for him. He is not a good person who has done a bad thing. He is the bad thing that he has done. Nobody cares about all the good things he might have performed prior to the crime. Nobody cares how impeccable his behavior has been subsequent to the crime. The only thing that is ever considered is the crime itself, and if the crime is bad, then the offender is bad.
This surely isn’t exactly on point with the post, but it’s the big picture I’m talking about. And, I had to say it.
If punishment were to ever fit the amount of harm done by the crime then the guy who stole Lance Armstrong’s bike would not be doing 3 years in prison, and the cop who fell asleep in his car and killed two people on bikes would not be getting probation and 4 months of electronic monitoring. But one is bad, and one is good. See how it works.
Thanks for the great comment Lorraine, and it’s an excellent point to make.
When I generally see this kind of result I tend towards believing that it has more to do with the pressure prosecutors and judges feel to side with the police on any issue in order to maintain their “tough on crime credentials” come election time through police union endorsements and campaign contributions. Not to mention the need prosecutors and judges have to maintain good working relationships with a police force that, if they so chose, are free to not show up at trials where their testimony is required for convictions… whether that be in retribution for prosecutors filing charges against a cop or just because they had more important things to do that day.
But, it might very well be equally true that it’s all about the label so to speak… As you say, a person accused of a crime is defined by that crime, often referred to as a thief, gang member, murderer, assailant, etc… even before a verdict is reached. Yet, no matter what the crime, a police officer is called a police officer and treated as though that job title confers special supra-human status in comparison to someone who works as a retail clerk or airline pilot.
One of the things I tried to show through the statistics is that being a police officer does not make one more or less human than anyone else. A cop is just as predisposed to commit criminal acts as any other person who works in any other field of work. Some may even say they are more predisposed because of how easy it is to get away with crimes and due to their constant exposure to crime, but it’s still a matter of them being just as human as anyone else and, therefore, just as susceptible to corruptive influence as that guy who became a tyrant in a bottle after that promotion to supervisor in someone’s workplace (we all know the type).
Ultimately, the post was just my thinking out loud, looking for a way to build a counterbalance to the bias inherent in our system by changing the system itself… since it seems impossible to change the minds of the people who hold their bias close to their hearts.
But, again, thank you for the excellent and well-thought-out response, definitely thought provoking!
One thing I wonder: If “years of good service” is often cited, does anyone really know what the service records of those convicted (and given light sentences) really are? Are they really paragons of police virtue?
Aside from that, I agree with Lorraine: Why does a history of being good at their job excuse criminal action on their part? How do the results stack up against citizens doing similar things as first-time offenders?