Randy "duke" Cunningham

[boxbanger_]

If anyone from San Diego reads this, you may be aware of these two cases: Randy Cunningham’s sentencing (for taking bribes; tax evasion) and the possible sentencing of Angelina Padilla's hit-and-run killer--an event that has attracted media attention since the identification of the suspect.

What I ask is this: is justice served by sentencing "Duke" (a highly decorated Fighter Pilot) to eight years in prison, whereas someone charged with a fatal hit-and-run (someone who has multiple drunk driving convictions, and who was already in jail for an unrelated crime) has a maximum sentence of four years eight months?

I think no. In the first case, it is not as though "Duke" once released, will re-offend--he will be under intense public and government scrutiny, as well as not being able to get a job that would allow him access to such bribes. Seeing that he is very old, and that he has certainly enjoyed the fruits of his ill-gotten labor, would a more just punishment (and I mean this for most white-collar criminals) be to deprive him of all money for the period of his sentence? Allow him the option of serving a sentence, or tax him like 90% for the rest of his life. It seems the only way to punish this type of crime is with money. I will use Martha Stewart as an example--she goes and serves six months, and when she is released, nothing. Wouldn't taking her money away be more punishment? I say these things not because I want to go around taking people's money from them, but because I hate to see someone like these two put into maximum-security prison for ten years, when violent criminals serve half the time.

"If I could talk one on one with Randy right now, I would tell him that he was a good pilot and brave vet and has done a fine job for us in pushing for such programs as child protection, and others. His BIG weakness was anything connected with the almighty dollar, budgets, appropriations, etc.

We have seen this all before with bank comptrollers, accountants, treasurers, trust managers, et al being too weak to resist the temptation to subvert funds to feather their own nests. Certain people just cannot be trusted with direct access to others funds. They might make wonderful truck drivers, factory workers, engineers, or whatever and do just fine.

That said, Randy you are not a person that would shoot a 21-year-old 7-11 clerk between the eyes after he has given you all his money just to eliminate him. You are not a low life child molester, mega drug dealer or a contract hired killer. We need to keep things in perspective here and realize this is a person that has done many good things in his life too. Greed is a terrible temptation but it is not lethal in scope.

I would tell Randy I will choose to remember him as a Vietnam Vet that has done a whole lot of good things for us all, but fell victim to an inherit weakness surfacing by being in the wrong job that allowed that ready access.

I choose to reserve my real 'hatred' for the vicious, heartless killers and child abusers that walk amongst us daily." eowawa, san diego

Edited March 24, 2006 by boxbanger_

[FeatherFall]

Be careful, we love our Martha...

But I agree, sentencing needs to be changed.

[Toolboxnj]

While I agree with the original post to an extent, it's important we do not ignore the machine that allowed a man like Cunningham (as honored a hero in Vietnam as he was) to become as corrupt as he did.

In my recollection Cunningham was the chairman of an important defense appropriations committee and he steered dollars and contacts to personal donors. His crimes were the product of a broken system where corruption is rampant - a system where people like Cunningham have too much power when it comes to OPM.

Now with the sentencing question.

I had a family member that was involved in a DWI hit and run where he permanently disabiled another man for life. He blew a .18 BAC with the police and was very much guilty of the crime in question. But the family ponied up the money for the lawyer and eventually the 2nd degree assault w/ deadly weapon was dropped to a misdemeanor; instead of five-eight years in prison he got five years probation with a slap on the wrist (some fines and alcohol treatment). He then made a deal with the community service officer to redo his kitchen for him at little cost and the officer wrote off 180 hours of service in exchange. The family member hasn't learned his lesson; he still drinks even after a court order restricts him from drinking while on probation.

Again, let's examine why this happens:

- Our courts are clogged with nonsense criminal cases and civil suits (i.e. "victimless crimes")

- Defense lawyers work hand-in-hand with prosecutors to get cases disposed of as quickly as possible without court time (plea bargaining)

Our court system, then, gives an advantage toward guilty parties because all they have to do is admit their guilt and they recieve a lighter sentence then they would otherwise receive. The not-guilty in the system get the short end of the deal since plea bargaining is the natural, mechanic legal motion; a costly and prolonged trial is more costly than admitting to guilt even when one isn't guilty. Therefore the not-guilty poor are at a severe disadvantage... and I'm no Marxist (far from it).

Our justice system is anything but "just". There needs to be a major overhawl of executive power, a more objective law and a greater funded judicial system. Until then we will continue to have issues such as this.

[Hal]

Although I'm not familiar with the details of this case, corrupt politicians are a far greater threat to the country than renegade motorists - and sentencing should reflect this. The leniant sentence you propose would in no way serve as a deterrant for others who find themselves in similar situations.

Edited April 2, 2006 by Hal

[Toolboxnj]

Although I'm not familiar with the details of this case, corrupt politicians are a far greater threat to the country than renegade motorists - and sentencing should reflect this. The leniant sentence you propose would in no way serve as a deterrant for others who find themselves in similar situations.

One could always reverse corruption, but you cannot give a man his life back.

Again, strict sentencing isn't going to do anything... Hell, all of Congress would (and probably should) be locked up for a long time

You have to reconstruct the laws and Congress to move away from this interest group dominated liberalism into more of a representative democracy.