No, this isn’t a review of the classic book by Dostoyevsky. This is a bit more current than 1866. But I think some points of this missive may be just as classic (dislocated shoulder due to patting myself on the back). Let’s dig.
The news recently has been ablaze with the General Michael Flynn case. Rather than re-state the entire case here, I’ll make the wild assumption that the reader is familiar with it. Literally ALL news feeds are covering this, with some slant or another, depending upon the outlet. My focus will be limited to the idea of crime vs punishment in general, but I’ll revisit the Flynn case to close.
What is a ‘crime’? Sounds like an easy question, but it gets murky pretty quickly. The stock answer is: any activity that breaks a societal or legal code. But what if that societal or legal code is not moral or valid in some way? Think Jim Crow laws of the 1950’s. They were ‘legal’, but not ‘moral’. Gladly, we corrected those mistakes, but the premise remains: are immoral or invalid laws enforceable? Anyone want to throw out an opinion on the legality or morality of State Governor’s COVID-19 ‘decrees’?
Why do crimes merit a ‘punishment’? This topic has been hammered over the centuries, as attitudes change pretty frequently. Rehabilitation vs detriment vs ‘safety of society’? All come into play. Slapping a wrist for a first-time offender may change his/her approach to life, and put them on a better path. Some evils are sentenced to keep the offender away from society at all: a mass-murderer is either put to death or imprisoned for life as both a punishment and a protection for the rest of us. The detriment version of punishment is an important point these days. Sometimes, the punishment just isn’t severe enough to deter future activity. For example: speeding. The typical speeding ticket is more of an inconvenience than a hindrance—usually around a $100 fine. But people still exceed the posted speed limits, virtually all of the time. Suppose the penalty for 10 miles over the speed limit was impounding the vehicle for a month, plus a $1,000 fine? Might change some behaviors a bit, huh? Set the Cruise control!
Now for the crux of the current issue: General Flynn. He was about to receive a prison sentence for pleading guilty to a fairly small process crime—lying to the FBI. At first glance, that sounds fairly cut-and-dried. Except for the details. The FBI already KNEW what Flynn had said on his phone calls, as they had him wiretapped. They convinced Flynn that he wasn’t a suspect to a crime, so he didn’t need an attorney (or the White House counsel) for this interview (WARNING!) Then the notes surfaced that the FBI folks KNEW he hadn’t committed a crime, but they were still trying to get him fired or entrap him! Then, to top it off, they convinced Flynn that if he didn’t plead guilty, they would go after his son.
Upon making these notes public, the DOJ decided to drop all charges against Flynn. The reactions to this were quite polarized: everything from ‘he should sue the FBI for damages for wrongful prosecution’ to ‘he plead guilty—he shouldn’t be able to take that BACK!’ IMHO, General Flynn not only deserved to have the charges dropped, he deserves punitive damages assessed to the FBI. This behavior by the FBI is so bad, it brings into question EVERYONE ELSE THESE FBI AGENTS HAVE EVER PROCESSED! It truly damages the integrity of the entire organization. Also my opinion: everyone from the FBI involved in this case KNEW it was an underhanded, unlawful prosecution. And they went through with it anyway. Those involved should not be ‘reprimanded’ or ‘fired’. They should be charged with as severe a crime as possible. That crime/punishment thing again: the punishment should be SO SEVERE that no future FBI or DOJ agent would EVER even think of doing this again. Ever.
A last point: The FBI is not a Cabinet-level organization. It exists as the enforcement/investigative arm of the Department of Justice. The need for an organization that can investigate interstate crime is very real—the initial focus of the FBI was bank robberies and kidnapping, where the criminals crossed state lines. However, the current organization simply is not living up to the trust that the public deserves. Maybe it is just at the top, where positions are more political than the rank-and-file agents. A very good argument, based upon current known info, can be made to disband the entire FBI, and start completely over. Anyone with investigative experience and knowledge should re-apply—you are still in demand. Anyone that has a political axe to grind? Retire, before we throw your ass into jail for sedition. Crime vs punishment.
