This morning, we learn that Judge Douglas P. Woodlock sentenced convicted felon Michael McLaughlin to three years in federal prison. The same judge, in February of 2011, sentenced Dianne Wilkerson to three and half years.
Prosecutors recommended a sentence of only eighteen months — part of a plea deal “negotiated” with Mr. McLaughlin in exchange for information about illegal fundraising. No indictments have been forthcoming, there is no evidence that any are imminent. So far, Tim Murray is the only name mentioned — today’s piece keeps the Globe’s perfect string of innuendo intact: “State Attorney General Martha Coakley is still investigating McLaughlin’s fund-raising on behalf of several politicians, including Murray”.
Michael McLaughlin stole something in excess of half a million dollars from the people of Massachusetts. Dianne Wilkerson stole $23,500.
So the well-connected white male public official steals — primarily from poor minorities who live in public housing — more than twenty times as much as the black female public official, and gets a lighter sentence.
I can’t decide whether this demonstrates racism, cronyism, sexism, political corruption, or all of the above.
I do know that something is very very wrong here.
But it’s tougher to prove that money that is, for example, deposited in a real estate trust and then distributed, is an illegal bribe, than it is for money stuffed into your clothing.
When you compare the money involved in every case of corruption, you ultimately get nowhere.
This is about sentencing. If you don’t want to compare amounts, why not compare crimes–McLaughlin’s seems worse to me.
not my comment.
I don’t think Chuck Turner should have gone to jail at all, and I wish that Diane Wilkerson’s sentence was a lot shorter. And it wouldn’t bother me if McLaughlin’s sentence was a lot longer.
But it’s silly to act like this is the worst disparity in sentencing you’ve ever seen while there is a another trial going on with murderers and drug dealers who served sentences not much longer.
The elected person is typically held to a higher standard than an appointed official.
I checked back to Abscam, the FBI sting operation that resulted in a number of convictions of elected officials, and a three year sentence was a typical number for bribery (or bribery related).
That was the first thing that crossed my mind too – I think that an elected official should be held to a higher standard than an appointed official or a staff hire. However, I think that theft from the public should also be held to higher standard than private theft, and I’m not sure of 3 years is sufficient for the theft of $500,000 in public funds.
I fail to see anyway to justify giving this guy a smaller sentence than Wilkerson or Turner — personally, I think he should have gone away for at least 5 years. It’s the worst act of corruption in Massachusetts that I’ve ever been alive to witness, IMO.
I think he should have received exactly zero years (same for Wilkerson and Turner).
What value do we get from putting him in prison (and paying those extra costs) compared to making him just pay back like a million dollars and bar him from ever working for the government again?
or just the white collar variety? Or, some other subset?
…are the ones that should go to jail. If you mug me or break into my house to steal my money I want you behind bars. If you take a bribe or commit another political crime the consequences should be likewise political and economic.
I think wealthy and powerful officials who steal and plunder the weak and powerless they are appointed to protect should face both financial ruin and LONG incarceration when caught. I view them as in a league with doctors who molest patients, priests who molest supplicants, and cops who extort from shopkeepers.
I think the value we get is the reaffirmation that we expect public officials to obey the law. Really “expect”, as in go-to-jail-if-you-don’t. The majority of Mr. McLaughlin’s victims face far lengthier sentences if caught passing a few ounces of pot to a friend for couple hundred dollars.
Now that Mr. McLaughlin has been given his slap on the wrist, I sincerely hope that, one way or another, he suffers a severe enough financial penalty that he faces the rest of his life utterly dependent on the kind of public housing he so egregiously denied his victims. I have a fantasy that he finds himself sleeping at the Pine Street Inn because a public housing apartment that would otherwise be his is, because of his criminal conviction, instead given to deserving family with no criminal record.
Those who both betray the public trust and intentionally plunder the weakest among us should, in my view, face severe and certain consequences. Money is sometimes not sufficient.
The examples you cite in your first paragraph actually hurt people, put them in physical danger, and belong in prison. I believe prison is at least as much about the safety of the rest of us as it is penalizing the perpretrator and I’m not going to sleep easier knowing the people cited in this diary are behind bars. (Quick disclosure – while I’m not at all close to him McLaughlin and I served simultaneously for a little while on the Dracut DTC though I think we only actually attended a handful of the same meetings.) Frankly your third paragraph strikes me as more of a call for vengeance rather than justice.
If you don’t think denying someone housing causes “actual hurt” or puts them in “physical danger”, then it sounds like you haven’t faced life on the street without a home.
Mr. McLaughlin used his position to line his pockets while denying housing to those who deserved and needed it. He literally stole money that could otherwise be used to build new housing and perform desperately required maintenance on existing units.
Perhaps you are right about vengeance versus justice. Perhaps fear is what I seek. Most of all, whether fear, vengeance, or justice, I seek a change in the attitude our public officials. I’m sick to death of men and women who can’t be bothered to pay or even file for their taxes, who barter jobs and contracts for cash, who use the powers of their office to eliminate rivals for higher office, who willfully sacrifice the public good to further their own careers.
We are far more forgiving of corrupt public officials than of, for example, ballplayers who cheat. We seem to have forgotten the concept of genuine repentance — acknowledging the grievous wrong that we have committed, as a prerequisite for seeking the forgiveness that we desire.
Stomv – I think that property crimes generally should not result in jail time. Some crimes that are primarily property crimes, like armed robbery or burglary are physical invasions, have specific victims, and often create situations in which worse crimes can occur.
If someone steals a bike from a bike rack, I don’t think they should get jail time (unless they are habitual and the economic punishment does not stop the behavior). I think it is horrible that small-time thieves will often face far greater sentences than Mr. McLaughlin, and I don’t think either should be in prison.
As far as doctors and priests molesting people, I think they are soooo much worse. Yes, they have breached some public trust, but they have also specifically and physically harmed individuals (sometimes children) and cause harm that is often lifelong. Corruption generally does not have such victims. I’m surprised anyone would think those crimes are in the same league.
As far as sentences for non-violent drug offenses, I don’t think those should happen at all either. The disparity is so clearly wrong, but I don’t think prison is justified for either crime.
Prison should be for dangerous individuals who need to be isolated from everyone else. Sometimes, these include economic criminals, like the people who through fraud caused the financial system collapse. Of course, almost none of those people have been prosecuted, instead the DOJ and AGs have focused on smalltime corruption.
McLaughlin is a huge asshole, but I don’t think he’s dangerous at all.
It sounds to me as though you join Christopher in your unawareness of what “homeless” implies.
I encourage you to find a way to spend some time volunteering with some organization that provides services for the homeless. If you are a twenty-something mother with, say, two or three children who has left an abusive spouse, then I strongly suspect you would disagree that Mr. McLaughlin’s actions did not “specifically and physically harm” yourself and your children.
In my view, the premise that Mr. McLaughlin is not “dangerous” is itself dangerous. It sounds all too much like the claim of “Juror 57” that Mr. Zimmerman was “foolish” but not “criminal”.
In my view, an aspect of our criminal justice system is setting standards, and specifying consequences for their violation. I think those consequences should reflect our collective wisdom about the gravity of the violation.
In that context, I most heartily disagree with your contention that Mr. McLauglin is not dangerous at all. I think he, and public officials like him, are incredibly dangerous. I think that public officials who knowingly and intentionally break the law for their own gain are, in fact, a clear and present danger to the society that we all treasure.
That 20-something mother you cite was not burglarized or beaten by McLaughlin. I did not use a standard of no harm at all and I’m sure if the two of them had an encounter that mother would walk away unhurt. The Zimmerman comparison (juror B37 BTW) is out of line since Zimmerman did in fact kill someone. Flushing out those details is a topic for its own thread, but suffice to say here that he is exactly the kind of person who IMO DOES belong in jail.
You know nothing about my background (or likely Christopher’s). Your accusations are out of line. Save that kind of crap for dealing with DanfromWaltham. I have represented homeless clients and know full well what homelessness entails.
The issue with McLaughlin’s actions was that they were general, not specific actions against individuals. I have never said that they were not bad. I just disagree that prison makes sense as punishment. He gets three years and a $4,000 fine. $4,000! I would prefer something like a $1,000,000 fine that would have him paying it back for the rest of his life. I think that sends the message to him and others in his position, and returns assets to the public rather than causing additional outlays for a prison term.
I agree. But I don’t think that implies prison time for certain crimes.
McLaughlin, after being removed from his position and being punished (with strong economic damages that I prefer) poses no current danger, and that is the issue. His actions caused harm, but he is no longer a danger. Prison should be for those who remain a danger.
I don’t mean to accuse you of anything beyond what strikes me as a lack of empathy.
I guess we disagree about we discern who presents a “danger”. You conclude that Mr. McLaughlin (and officials like him) do not — I disagree.
I think the prison term is way too much, the fine too low. On balance, I’d say the sentence is too much.
I think you’ve misread me. I think Mr. McLaughlin has done harm, but now that he has been caught and prosecuted, he no longer presents a danger. He will never be in the position to do similar harm – whether he goes to prison or not.
In terms of sending a message to others by his punishment, I think that message can be sent in just as loud a way in a manner that is more beneficial to the public. As it stands now, he pays a $4,000 fine and WE pay $50K a year (or more depending on his health needs) to keep him in prison. That $500,000 he stole is gone and then some, and he also gets to keep most of his pension.
I’m sorry, but the bottom line of your argument is that he essentially walks.
He steals more than half a million dollars, gets a brief jail term and a tiny fine, and he’s done. The pension is icing on the cake. Then you wonder why people are cynical about public servants, taxes, and the rest.
In my view, when you arrive at an outcome this wrong, then somewhere along the way you’ve made a mistake.
He was stating what the current situation is, but has argued for much stiffer financial penalties. Not sure what the minority community has to do with either your comment or his. I’d be satisfied if Turner and Wilkerson were simply barred from seeking or holding public office again.
I am not saying he should essentially walk, he should be hit with an incredibly stiff financial penalty.
As far as the minority community, I don’t understand what you are getting at. If you are saying that I am ok with this guy not going to prison while and ok with poorer minorities getting more prison time for less significant nonviolent crimes, well, then %$#@ You! That is not at all what I have said and you are misrepresenting and misreading me.
All I have said is that nonviolent property crimes should generally receive appropriate punishments that provide deterrence, restitution, and additional payments to the government instead of prison time. Prison should be for those we need to keep from the rest of society because they pose a real danger.
Compared to longer prison sentences for much less significant crimes like dealing weed that minority communities often experience, McLaughlin’s sentence does seem short. I am not endorsing that disparity.
Here’s how it could work. No prison for either.
A person who stole a $50 shirt from a store – $250 fine and 20 hours community service.
McLaughlin – $1M+ fine and 5000 hours community service.
I get that you are describing the current situation. I am, in turn, describing the import of that current situation.
The current situation is that minorities receive disproportionally tough prosecution and, when convicted, sentences than their white counterparts. The current situation is that Michael McLaughlin, whose crime was far far worse than Diane Wilkerson (surely we agree on that), got a lighter sentence. Chuck Turner was convicted of accepting a ONE thousand dollar bribe, and got the same sentence as Mr. McLaughlin — who stole more than FIVE HUNDRED thousand dollars.
I further suggest that the current situation is that if the roles were reversed — if Ms. Wilkerson were to have been found guilty of embezzling more than half a million dollars, and Mr. McLaughlin of fraudulently padding his expense reports by a thousand dollars — Ms. Wilkerson would be ruined for life (one way or another) and Mr. McLauglin would walk away unscathed.
Finally, I suggest that if it were, for example, white Irish men who were consistently and pervasively discriminated against in prosecution and sentencing, the full force of the press and government would be engaged in correcting the “grievous” wrong.
The current situation is that we are dismantling the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, pronouncing a white man who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager “innocent”, and perpetuating disproportionate prosecution and sentencing of our public officials who are minorities.
That is the current situation. While I remain unconvinced by your argument about non-violent property crimes (I would prefer a $1M+ non-dischargeable fine and 10+ years in federal prison), the approach you suggest at least does address the clear disparity in the treatment of minorities.
I am genuinely not attacking you. I am, instead, emphasizing the reality of the de facto discrimination that characterizes the current situation and the importance of addressing that reality.
I suspect that we agree about that, and that the differences that remain between us are about how we get there.
I fully understand the reality and I think how we address it is by pushing for less prison across the board and reserve prison for those who continue to pose a danger to society.
The disparities are a much bigger and more important issue, but I still maintain that there is just too much prison generally. Although this has veered from the original question of this post, Judge Woodlock’s record should be investigated by the press and discussed in public. His differing sentences on these cases are cause for concern. If Wilkerson gets 3 years, McLaughlin should get 10+ years if we are going to be consistent, but I don’t like any of those sentences.
Also, because much of the disparity can be traced to prosecutorial discretion, I think we all need to focus energies there. I think we generally have bad DAs in this state. I wouldn’t support any of them for higher office, and I would love to see other candidates concerned about these issue challenge the incumbents. Unfortunately, most residents just want a strong “law and order” person in those offices. This also extends down to policing, which is a disaster.
One remedy would be for our leaders to decide that the DA/US Attorney experience is not the preferred background for judges. Many judges have a prosecutor/police bias in cases but don’t get questioned on it. The one judge in Boston, who allegedly has some defendant bias, Raymond Dougan, gets publicly investigated. Dan Conley’s request to have Dougan barred from criminal trials is one of the many reasons I am terrified he may become mayor.
If you believe he should receive a $1M+ fine and 10+ years, what types of sentences do you propose for rapists (who generally serve much shorter terms)?
I’m more concerned about the racial (and economic) disparities in rape prosecution and sentencing than in the absolute terms of those sentences. I’m not even sure what the sentencing guidelines are for rape, and I therefore defer to the wisdom of those who set them.
Rape is, however, one of those crimes where racial disparities in prosecution and sentencing are pronounced — so much so that a related problem is the extent to which African-American women internalize rape myths (see references like “VICTIM RACE AND RAPE: A REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH“, for example.
To the extent that you include Martha Coakley in your observation about DAs and higher office (I include AG alongside DA), I share your opinion. I see no evidence of any concern from Ms. Coakley whatsoever about the disturbing pattern emerging in these cases.
I definitely include AGs, especially those, like Coakley, who were less than stellar (to say the least) as DAs. She is fine on many consumer-related issues, but, as seen with her argument in Melendez-Diaz, she’s not too concerned about addressing overimprisonment of many populations.
Wealth is limitless. Time is not. Time is the only thing each of us has of value that we can’t simply buy more of.
If property crimes come with no risk of jail time, then the choice to commit or not is simply (a) am I willing to behave unethically, and (b) what is the risk-reward ratio? That is, if my odds are good, it’s worth doing.
This is a real problem. It’s encourages a “pay the penalty and do it anyway” outcome. It also underscores the discrepancy between the rich and the poor. It ensures that poor criminals go to jail and rot because they don’t have the resources to steal big enough amounts of money stored in some computer somewhere.
I’m not suggesting that we house tax cheats alongside rapists. I’m not suggesting that they have the same amount of time in the can, either. I am suggesting that if you steal something of value — even if you did it without interacting with the victim — you should go to jail.
An important principle that is not consistently honored, in fact is consistently corrupted by prosecutors who have endless resources available to prosecute and have the power to decide which offender they choose to prosecute for which offense.
Let’s say some shithead at Citizens Bank decides to digitally empty out thousands of accounts from people living paycheck to paycheck and transfer them to his account in the Cayman Islands. One of his victims, (say a school bus driver or something, father of three, with the rent due) after spending five hours on the phone trying to get his money restored while the bank investigates, goes off the deep end, heads down to his local branch, slips the teller a note asking for a thousand bucks “or else”. In Christopher’s world, the guy with the note goes to prison forever and the guy with the computer savvy just has to pay back what he can, and maybe say he’s sorry or something. I can’t get behind that philosophy.
I don’t think that is what Christopher implied at all.
Because i could swear I’ve heard him say over and over that “non-violent” criminals shouldn’t go to prison, but should suffer ecnomically. So it would follow that the insider, the reverse-Robin Hood who steals from the poor with a clever computer trick or maybe a scam of some kind, would avoid imprisonment. And just for the sake of argument let’s say that the desperate guy in my story, who has been robbed by one of Christopher’s non-violent, already pretty-well-off bankers or public officials, turns to burglarizing suburban homes while people are on vacation, instead of teller-note-passing. Christopher said above that he thinks burglars should go to jail. Is there something essential that I’m missing? If I’ve mischaracterized your ideas on this then I apologize, Christopher.
…but you’re letting the banker off too easily. He should be required to take his money back from the Cayman Islands and pay back every penny to the victims plus fines to the government, not allowed to work for the banking industry ever again and perform 100s of hours of community service.
Or hidden?
Is sending a giant financial fraud to Club Fed really better than a $100M or more fine? I don’t think so. I’m ok with “pay the penalty and do it anyway” outcomes as long as the penalties are large enough to properly discourage the behavior.
The problem now is that the punishments are not balanced, so the poor pay higher penalties.
I just don’t think prison serves the public well for pure property crimes.
If you smash a store window, I don’t think you should go to jail. If you smash a store owner’s face, then yes, jail.
I didn’t write that the giant financial fraudster shouldn’t *also* pay restitution plus penalty in the form of dollars.
Besides, wealthy folks have methods upon methods of moving money in ways that “the man” can’t get at it. Trusts, international treaties, yadda yadda. Hiding a lot of money for decades is a hell of a lot easier than hiding yourself.
I do think destruction of property should be jailable, though not for the same amount of time as for violence against persons.
and it was money that came from communities that aren’t wealthy, either.
How can we not lock him up? That’s absolutely unconscionable. I think you hold an opinion that is very far outside the mainstream.
We certainly lock up far too many people, but there must be severe consequences for what took place here and for any bribery, theft of the public or embezzlement of public officials — and most assuredly on the magnitude of what took place here.
Honestly, I think 5 years is too little, especially in comparison to Turner and Wilkerson, but I say at least that because I recognize how overcrowded and expensive our prison system is…. but this is not some kid caught for smoking pot or petty theft. This was the systematic abuse of the public housing system of an entire community that relies on it. It is an outrage I could never abide by someone not getting any time for that kind of a violation at all. Why even have laws in that case in the first place?
Some of you think I have endorsed not punishing him at all. I have not.
I have consistently said that I believe he should receive a huge financial punishment, which I think fits such a financial crime.
Prison is not the only form of punishment. I just believe that it is often unproductive for society to use it for many types of crimes. Financial penalties can provide the deterrence and retribution in my opinion.
5+ years would be a similar sentence as for a rapist with no previous record in Massachusetts. Or an assault and battery with deadly weapon that resulted in significant injury (for someone with up to a moderate record). I think those people are dangerous and need to be in prison.
Apparently many people on this site disagree with me on whether financial penalties can provide the necessary deterrence and retribution. That’s a fair disagreement, but please don’t construe my position to mean that these people should not be punished.
I think all of these sentences are absurd. Prison is not right for these types of crimes. The punishment should only be economic.
One of the goals of incarceration is deterrence.
If it’s only “give the money back” in the form of a fine you’re basically saying “if you can get away with it, go go for it”
For some people if they’re smart enough you’ll never figure out exactly how much they got and they will have some leftover and it’s hidden. If they’re not, then you’re not going to get it back because they don’t have it.
Hypothetically a 65 year old steals $1 million at his public or private sector job. He blows all the money gambling and files for bankruptcy. His punishment is then what? They take away his birthday?
I think it should be giving the money back plus significant penalties.
I think the hiding of the assets is a different problem of law that we should, but refuse to, address. The government should have the tools to find and capture those assets.
Re: the 65-year-old. He pays back plus penalties as much as possible, the government garnishes future wages, and goes after a retirement account or pension. And then that 65-year-old basically does fulltime community service until unable to work.
I think that type of sentence sends the appropriate message to the individual and the public, provides restitution for the harm caused, and provides other societal benefits. Sending this person to prison so we can pay for his stay and increased medical costs only seems to accomplish the deterrence part while adding other societal costs.
People do community service in place of going to jail. Jail is the stick.
If you read the example above, he has no money.
He’s 65 so he’s not working any more.
He says “screw you” to the community service.
Are you going to take away his social security so then he starves to death?
Yes, people do community service instead of going to jail. That is the point. But, it is still punishment, so it is still a stick. Jail is a bigger stick and can be used when someone does not uphold their other punishment.
Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean no assets and being 65 does not necessarily mean retirement.
But if you want to play the unlikely hypothetical game, which is rarely helpful, then I still think his punishment should be assets seized and required community service.
I’m really surprised how many people on this site are so aggressive in their support of prison terms. I wouldn’t have expected that from a generally progressive group.
“White collar” criminals are already treated more leniently. They are far and away the most likely to stay out of prison, get short sentences, and stay in safe facilities. The system already pushes heavily in that direction. If we passed laws holding nonviolent, large-scale theft to be non-prisonable, that would exacerbate and worse, codify, inequality in this area–and it would deeply confirm the sense that “people like us,” no matter what we do, do not belong in prison. It’s only for “people like them.”
My position would be to reduce or eliminate prison sentences for almost all non-violent crimes, not just white collar. And as far as where to start, I think the imprisonment of individuals for nonviolent drug offenses is much more pressing.
I have not advocated for just changing laws related to financial crimes or making something non-prisonable. Some laws should change, though, especially ones defining sentences as things like “a fine of not more than $2000 and/or imprisonment for not more than 6 months.” The fines should be much higher for many of these crimes, and prison should rarely be required.
“People like them” would be the violent offenders. “People like us” would be the non-violent. I’d be ok with that. If “People like them” referred to poorer, street criminals, then I would not be ok with (as I have mentioned repeatedly, even though people refuse to acknowledge that as my position).
Yo, doubleman:
I get where you’re coming from. I disagree with your position, but I get it. The problem I think that you’re finding in this thread is that you’re “imposing” your criminology theories mid-stream, and it just so happens that your first test case is a white dude. It’s extremely difficult to have a mixed conversation about both the theoretical and a very specific case.
I’m intrigued by your ideas, and wonder: would you consider creating a diary entry or post or w(ever)tf this site calls it? It might allow you to get off of your heels and set the tone of a productive conversation… one I’d like to be a part of, and don’t think can happen in this thread.