The Blagojevich Fallout

This sentence sends two messages:

1. Illinois is really good at pointless outrage after the fact, but it won't pay close enough attention to do anything about it beforehand.

2. Watch your ass if you're governor. Everybody else is safe.

In fairness, he did get impeached.

The sentence is actually less than recommended if I remember correctly, so in that way he got preferential treatment.  I've heard it's almost a given that a judge will sentence a regular Joe to at least the minimum.  So in this way, he lucked out.

That said, I think sentences are generally to draconian across the board, but that's another can of worms.

I disagree.  I think Pols in Illinois must now seriously consider their actions and "business as usual."  I think the sentence was just and is sending a message loud and clear. 

It's Friday, and I don't feel like doing what I should be doing right now.  So...

How is his sentence just?  Why is it just to sentence a man who has never had a criminal record, who did not commit any type of violent crime, and who committed what many would call a completely victimless crime to more time than is mandatory for a Class X felony?

He didn't actually sell the Senate seat.  He never received money for it, nor did he receive money for alot of other things he was accused of.   My understanding is that the funding for the Children's Hospital did eventually go through.

Was he an arrogant asshole of epic proportions who tried to use his office to further his career (he really wanted to be president) and massage his own ego?  Absolutely.  Totally, 100%.  Did he ask for campaign contributions in return for political favors?  Yes, absolutely.   That's no different than any other politician in any other state in any other office in this country (or the world probably).  Blago was alot more crass about it, but that seems to be his biggest crime.

George Ryan was convicted of corruption which he was actually successful at that resulted in the death of like 6 kids.  And he got 6.5 years.  Blago got 14 years for trying to do something that he was never actually successful in doing, and even if he had been successful wouldn't have resulted in the death of anyone.

Blago was convicted of a crime by a jury, and no matter how I feel about the merits of the case, he should be punished for that.  But the sentence was way over the top.  If this is really to punish him for harm to the state of Illinois (ha!), then why give him 14 years in jail, but only a $20,000 fine?  If, as the argument goes, he cost Illinois taxpayers so much money, shouldn't he be asked to pay that money back?  Wouldn't it be more productive for all of us that instead of us paying to house, clothe, and feed him for the next 14 years, we tell him to go get a job and pay a hefty fine that goes right back into the state treasury?

Also -- my personal feeling is that Pat Fitzgerald had some sort of personal vendetta against Blago, starting from the very first.  Did he commit crimes?  Maybe, maybe not.  I wasn't on the jury.  But he in no way deserves to serve more time than someone convicted of KILLING someone.

I agree. I don't think Blago got a fair trial, and while what he did in this case (re: with the Senate seat) was unsavory, scheming and horse-trading are not crimes.

Blago was very well represented at trial. His trial was fair.

He was well represented at the first trial, where the jury could only find enough evidence to convict him of one count.  The second trial was conducted by a public defender, and they found him guilty of almost everything.  How much of that was due to the strength of the evidence, and how much was due to a poor defense?  We'll never know, but it bears asking.

I believe that the tapes were made public after the first trial was over, so we'll never know how that might have affected jury members going in.  Regardless, he was pretty much tried in the media both during and after the first trial, and I think the second trial should've at least warranted a change in venue in an attempt to get a less media-exposed jury.

Ultimately the state of Illinois wasted tens of millions (if not more) of dollars in what looks very much like a witch hunt for one guy, who tried but failed to do something that was really crass but only might have been illegal, and the end result will end up costing we the tax payers even more money on a victimless crime. 

What is this might have been illegal stuff? He's a convicted felon. It was illegal. Sheesh.

I maintain that he never actually succeeded in doing anything.  He may have TRIED to do things that were illegal, but such things never went beyond the talking stage.  I think he was convicted in large part because he is an arrogant ass, and he was certainly punished as harshly as he was because of it. 

Happy Friday ya'll.  I'm out of here.

Considering that the prosecution was permitted to present all sorts of circumstantial material that wasn't directly relevant to the alleged conspiracy, and considering that the defense wasn't permitted to put on the kind of defense they wanted to present, and considering that he was put on trial a second time after the first jury couldn't convict (leaving Blagojevich forced to use a public defender), I would argue that he wasn't very well represented.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy. But not being a likable politician and being a felon are two very different things.

No attorney ever gets to put the case on that they want. The P.D. had a blueprint of the entire case. Come on. Not ideal is different than unfair.

Does this serve as a deterrent?  In a word - no.

Criminals do not think they will get caught.  Every criminal from a 12 year old shoplifter to an adult murderer to an Illinois politician commit their crimes fully convinced that they will not get caught.  The punishment for the crime is not the deterrent -- the idea of being caught is.

Maybe the fact that the state's attorney has shown that he will go to extraordinary lengths to CATCH corrupt politicians will help stop future corruption.  But even then, most politicians are going to think they are smarter than everyone else, and that they can cover their tracks better than the last guy.  And as long as Illinois voters continue to vote for politicians who they KNOW are corrupt, the system isn't going to change.

Not so and statistics prove it. It's true that criminals do not think they will be caught. In fact, it's obvious because if they thought they would be caught they wouldn't do the crime.  That's common sense.  However,  when criminals see that those caught will be punished, they are less inclined to think they won't get caught.  For example, if no politicians were prosecuted and convicted, other politicians would be justified in thinking they wouldn't be caught either.  But when politicians are caught and convicted, others are less inclined to think they won't be caught.  Convicting criminals most definitely does affect other potential criminals.  It is definitely a deterrent.   You are correct that voters in Illinois continue to vote for these crooks but vigorous prosecution of those caught definitely has it's place and it has an effect. Using your logic, perhaps we should simply not bother catching and prosecuting crooked politicans. 

Does this serve as a deterrent?  In a word - no.

Agreed 100% the deterrent talk is laughable, but I think the voters voting for corrupt politicians angle is putting the cart before the horse.  The only thing that will deter (but not in anyway cure) this kind of corruption is to remove the corrupting element from politics:  big money.  Publicly funded elections and severe campaign cash restrictions would be the only way to start weeding out the crooks and leaving politics to those that have a genuine desire to serve the people.

I'm cynical enough to think that money will never be completely separated from politics, and even if it somehow is, there will never be a way to alleviate the "power corrupts" aspect.  The very job description gives them power over decisions that people are going to want to influence and that is going to lead to conflicts of interest.

It is in fact a conundrum that calls for long philosophical discussions involving lots of alcohol and know-it-all 20-somethings who haven't become too jaded.

I'm long out of the 20-something range, but "involving lots of alcohol" is still within my areas of interest.

Come to the next Chicagoist meetup :-)

He doesn't deserve a pension and should go to prison, but 14 years seams steep.