Comments (46)

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 10:40 AM:

Good. Hopefully this is just the beginning of things to come and even longer sentences will be given to such deserving people.

theWalrus wrote on January 22, 2008 10:43 AM:

By that yardstick, Bush deserves 402 years and Cheney deserves 1362 years.

daveminnj wrote on January 22, 2008 10:44 AM:

is wilkes a cooperating witness in
any ongoing investigations?
if so, could this be an act of
strong leveraging?

osage wrote on January 22, 2008 10:44 AM:

This would certainly be a clear signal to those still being investigated and or providing testimony that holding back info to protect others in the government could result in a virtual life sentence. This should jog a few memories and loosen a few tongues.

yellowdogD wrote on January 22, 2008 10:52 AM:

osage...from your lips to God's ears.
BTW, are you in or from NE OK?

David in NY wrote on January 22, 2008 10:58 AM:

Some misconceptions here. First, that the probation officer is really independent. In complicated cases like this, the PO basically takes what the prosecutor says are the facts and applies the sentencing guidelines to it. In a complicated case like this, the PO's conclusions are rarely an independent judgment of what the sentence should be, just a mechanical application of equally mechanical rules to the facts the prosecutor says happened.

Second, that the sentencing guidelines make any sense. The "guideline sentence" is all too often based on some numerical factor that may have only tangential relationship to what the sentence should be. Here, this is what the guideline sentence is based on: "In an interview [defense counsel] said probation officials appeared to have totaled up all the federal work ADCS got from the government and attributed all of it to criminal behavior." So the sentence is based on government "loss" and that "loss" is assumed to be every bit of federal work Wilkes's outfit got. This is a huge amount, and the sentence is accordingly huge. But does in make any sense? Not necessarily. The government didn't "lose" all that money probably, and even if it did, a straight-line correlation of dollars to years in prison probably doesn't make a lot of sense. The real harm here is not so much a monetary loss, probably, but the corruption of government processes.

It's probably better to throw out the guidelines calculation here and ask yourself -- how long should a guy who bribed a congressman with $625,000 over nearly 10 years, and got government contracts worth millions as a result, go to jail? It's not as bad as Enron, right? It's really corrupt, but it may not be clear how much the government was actually harmed. How long a prison sentence is appropriate, do you think?

nofltwlt wrote on January 22, 2008 11:04 AM:

What our nation needs is ethics reform. Sentencing Wilkes to 60 years will provide ethics reform even though our legislators cannot. If corrupt officials are sentenced to 60 years, as they should be, then other members of congress and the administration will think twice before scheming to defraud the nation.

When Bush and the rest of his henchmen leave office, they too should be dogged until they are imprisoned. This clean up is absolutely necessary if we are to recover from the evil of the Bush administration.

michael valentine wrote on January 22, 2008 11:10 AM:

This sort of sentence indicates that this guy isn't going to roll over and can take the long road home with a thirty year bid.

I'm sure there are a lot of Republican Congressmen who are breathing a sigh of relief. My own Duncan Hunter (Ca. district 53) may be able to use the remainder of his presidential campaign funding on something other then a legal fund.

Although looking really hard at a thirty year bid may change this guys mind. I mean look at him, he would be arm candy in the big house.

Escoffier wrote on January 22, 2008 11:40 AM:

This is not an excessive sentence. This was a crime against every taxpayer in the US. It is much worse than Enron which was run of the mill thieves (I know I lost plenty in that one and wanted to run down Jeff Skilling). He is a war profiteer and sneeringly used our democratic system of government to defraud each and every one of us. Enron defrauded mostly people who should have known better, this clown used our national defense against us all. Let him rot.

DeadeyeDickCheney wrote on January 22, 2008 11:40 AM:

I'm thinking that 60 years is about right.

Dennis wrote on January 22, 2008 11:41 AM:

Ah.... Look for a severly reduced sentence based on his "good works" within the community, or else, a presidential pardon.

The politicians involved with Wilkes aren't going to sit still on this one.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Tempest wrote on January 22, 2008 11:54 AM:

I'm still waiting for the pictures of the hookers Brent and The Duck fought over to be posted. Is that too much to ask.

As for 60 years. Yeah thats okay by me. Throw him away.

iVoted4Nader wrote on January 22, 2008 11:54 AM:

Looks like Wilkes will be following Ken Lay to Dubai for a face transplant while US Taxpayers get to read his obit and lose out on any $$compensation.

...nothing to see here, the man is dead, move along...

Stooleo wrote on January 22, 2008 11:56 AM:

"When Bush and the rest of his henchmen leave office, they too should be dogged until they are imprisoned. This clean up is absolutely necessary if we are to recover from the evil of the Bush administration."

This is what I keep hoping that someone will ask the candidates. I want a clear indication the new president will have his or her AG continue to pursue these corruption cases.

don de drain wrote on January 22, 2008 11:56 AM:

I want to know more about the sentencing judge. Does this judge routinely follow the PSR? Due to recent ruling of the Supremes, the judge will have quite a bit of discretion when it comes to sentencing.
Wilkes doesn't need 60 years, he only needs 30. That will keep him in for nearly all, if not all, of his life, barring a pardon from the Chimpster.

David in NY wrote on January 22, 2008 11:58 AM:

Well, the comments here explain why this country incarcerates more people per capita than any in the world. Even among liberals, there seems to be an incredible urge to punish, without much regard to effect or cost. If Wilkes got sentenced to 60 years' (which will not happen), the effect will be tiny, for it will be forgotten in a second, and in five years you won't even know who he was -- but he'll have 55 years to go on his sentence. And as for the punishment fitting the crime, I don't believe there has been a white collar sentence of more than 20 years in prison in this country in the last 50 years, and I include vastly more harmful crimes, such as Enron, etc.

Cripes, think about it. 60 years That's not necessary for deterrence -- your congressman quails at spending a single night in jail. And keeping somebody like Wilkes in jail for an extra 50 years is nothing more than a waste of $1,000,000 (not counting medical care for the last 25), the cost of his incarceration.

It's about time people stopped thinking that gigantic prison terms were the solution to every social ill.

David in NY wrote on January 22, 2008 12:09 PM:

Well, these comments sort of show why the US leads all other countries in number of citizens incarcerated per capita.

To think that a 30-year, much less a 60-year, sentence is necessary to deter guys like Wilkes, or the people they bribe, is sort of divorced from reality. I mean, they quail at the prospect of a single night in jail -- the important thing is to make clear they can't get away with it, not that they'll spend live in prison. And while the crime, systematically corrupting a congressman, was extremely serious, people who commit far more serious crimes don't get sentences like that. (There hasn't been a white collar sentence of over 25 years ever, I believe, and lots of violent criminals get shorter sentences.) Then, the cost -- a 60-year sentence costs well over $1,200,000, not counting medical care for an aging prisoner, a ridiculous waste of money (for the last 50 years or so, anyway). A sentence of the proposed lenght is absurd.

theswan wrote on January 22, 2008 12:12 PM:

And Ted Stevens? When will charges be brought?

theWalrus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:32 PM:

Anyone rightwinger convicted of any crime will be pardoned by Bush before he leaves office.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:32 PM:

"Even among liberals, there seems to be an incredible urge to punish, without much regard to effect or cost."

i agree. also, remember how awesome it was when scooter got to walk?

Noncooperator wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

Our country is hypocritical when it comes to ethics. Commonly accepted ethical lapses abound. Fly on business, get a kickback/frequent flyer miles tax free. Put business expenses on your Discovery card, get a cashback tax free bribe. Want a credit card, according to the asterisk at the bank, the interest rate is only 4%(they don't say what the rate is that an informed decision maker would want to know). I am a CPA in Michigan. As part of our continuing professional education requirement we need two hours of ethics training. We sign an affidavit that reads as follows: "I certify that I attended two hours of ethics training (50 minutes equals one hour)". I could list examples forever. Nothing surprises me anymore.

_On my way to recycle in my SUV_
_I was passed by a hybrid going 93_

Dave Bowman wrote on January 22, 2008 1:21 PM:

David in NY, you make a good point, however, it seems like a more general proposition you are making, and I do agree, especially in 'Rockefeller' cases and other such overly harsh drug sentences.

That said, there is clearly a perception in this country that white collar criminals get off easy; while it may be hard for Mr. Biznessman to go to a minimum-security jail, personally, I think guys like Steven Griles do the math, and figure they can do 18 months, or whatever, then get out and enjoy their ill-gotten gains. This perception has to be reversed, and coming down heavy on Mr. Wilkes would be a good start. Frankly, $1mil to incarcerate him is small change next to the billions this country has been bilked out of during the Bush regime.

Also, don't forget they could have gone RICO on this guy--did they exhibit the 'Poway Mafia' hats at the trial?

michael valentine wrote on January 22, 2008 1:35 PM:

The crime undermined the National Security, by diverting funding that could have been used for any number of things that the government uses money for. Say armor for the troops in Iraq. How many troops didn't get armor because of this criminal? How many of them died?

The Romans used to take traders to a high place and throw them off in front of the people. Sixty years seems kind of easy to me.

BBpd wrote on January 22, 2008 1:45 PM:

I hope he gets all 60. All government corruption should be severely punished. We put teenage crack dealers in jail for 20 years, but you can bribe public officials and be out in time to enjoy your ill-gotten gains by retirement age. Nail him to the wall, and confiscate every asset he owns.

Peter Connolly wrote on January 22, 2008 2:06 PM:

The vicious cruelty of our criminal justice system is never questioned by people who became liberals ostensibly because they wanted a more kind and compassionate society. 60 years in a cage for bribing a congressman would be an insanely long and punitive sentence, a sentence to rot and die in jail without ever again seeing a sunset except through prison windows. But it is applauded by people in love with the idea of vengeance against their political enemies. In my view non violent criminals not physically dangerous to others should pay fines, and do community service or other restitution to their victims. And our prison sentences should be shorter generally and parole should be restored in the federal and state systems, creating a possibility of a decent life for ex offenders. We imprison more people for longer sentences than any other industrial country. And most liberals evidently think that is just great. H. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are too busy congratulating themselves on their wonderfulness ever to think about reform of this system. And judging by most comments here, the liberal base could not care less. Write me out of this script please.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 2:22 PM:

"In my view non violent criminals not physically dangerous to others should pay fines, and do community service or other restitution to their victims."

i agree. since members of the armed forces were among the victims of his actions, send him to iraq for a year's tour of duty. or would that be too cruel for wilkes since he'd be deprived of high-priced female escorts?

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 2:25 PM:

"The vicious cruelty of our criminal justice system is never questioned by people who became liberals ostensibly because they wanted a more kind and compassionate society."

and conservatives want to throw the book at "them" until they themselves get caught.

Kenneth Filak wrote on January 22, 2008 2:51 PM:

I find it interesting that the probation officer in this case is suggesting a heavy sentence while at the same time the Judge and probation staff are recommending that Jose Padilla gets a lighter sentence then the sentencing guidelines on the same day.

I know not the meaning of this but it some how inspires hope.

malcalypse wrote on January 22, 2008 2:52 PM:

It would be a far better deterrent for him to be seen destitute in public.

However, I am not obsessed with punishment or with retribution. I am interested in protecting the people from mr. wilkes.

He should be put where he can't harm society for the natural term of his life.

Ken wrote on January 22, 2008 2:54 PM:

On the same day that the probation officer is recommending a heavy sentence for this bush pal I read that the Judge for Jose Padilla is recommending a lighter sentence then the sentencing guidelines.

I know not why but this inspires hope.

chrisc wrote on January 22, 2008 3:04 PM:

For many white collar criminals, fines are just the cost of doing business and no real deterrent at all.

Consider Wilkes co-conspitritor Thomas Kontogiannis. He pleaded guilty 3 times but has never had to do any jail time yet. He continued to write fraudulent mortgages after his plea. A fine? No problem. Just write more phony mortgages. And, after Kontogiannis ripped off the school district and the federal government, both renewed their leases in his building. Crime doesn't pay?

Kontogiannis is still not in jail. In fact, nobody has mentioned where he is for weeks. Supposedly he is too sick to travel. Right.

At the last proceeding Tommy K just changed one of his local lawyers. Why? He has already pleaded guilty. Now that the San Diego AUSAs have recommended that K receive some time in the slammer, he is having heart surgery and stalling to avoid going to jail.

Will the stalling work? It did for a previous client of his lawyer, Arnold Satzman.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20010309/ai_n10164847

syvanen wrote on January 22, 2008 3:26 PM:

"Come to think of it, can any readers think of a more severe sentence ever handed down for government corruption?"

Last year two officials were executed in China for taking bribes.

don de drain wrote on January 22, 2008 3:32 PM:

I agree that spending 60 years in a cage (or even 30 years) for bribing a Congressperson will, in the normal case, be an "excessive" sentence if the purpose of the sentence is to rehabilitate the defendant. But if you want to deter others from engaging in this kind of conduct (and from refusing to plead guilty in the face of significant evidence of guilt), 30 years is appropriate for this particular crime, as long as there is an "even" (consistent) enforcement policy.

Trying to accomodate both goals (rehab, deterrence) is difficult. For the person who got caught with a small amount of illegal substance, rehab makes much more sense than incarceration as a general matter. In that respect our system is seriously flawed. We have far too many people incarcerated for relatively minor drug-related offenses. And the system should allow some convicted felons to avoid serving time in jail far more often than the system allows at the present time.

But the crime of bribing Congresspeople is something that deserves very serious punishment, for both the briber and bribee. Cunningham got off light. (And I doubt very much that Cunningham will ever be "reformed" or be truly penitent for what he did, although I hope I am wrong on that point.)

I agree that many people, if they ever had the opportunity to observe a sentencing hearing in federal court, after which the defendant is hauled off to prison, would be less "gleeful" in making comments like many of those made here, particularly if they had some connection with the defendant. It is not something to be gleeful about; rather, it is a tragedy. (I used to be an AUSA and am now in private practice, so I've been there.)

michael_Stevens wrote on January 22, 2008 3:34 PM:

My guess is that he receives between 15 and 20 years, and serves about 2/3rds of that.

Maybe 10 to 12 with good behavior.

Still, 10 years in jail for a guy in his 50s is no small deterrent. A 15 to 20 year sentence will send a strong message.

Yes, the guy is scum, but in perspective, he's definitely not deserving of a 60 year sentence.

He didn't kill anyone. He didn't even maim anyone. With VERY few exceptions, I don't believe non-violent criminals should ever be given life sentences. A 60 year sentence for this guy, even with good behavior, IS life.

The exceptions should be for people like Ken Lay. Those who ruined thousands of lives. This guy, while bad didn't seem to ruin anyone's life except his and his co-conspirators.

He is a speck of dust compared to Ken Lay's mountain of dirt.

Rodney wrote on January 22, 2008 3:48 PM:

Isn't Wilke's lawyer, Mark Geragos, the lawyer that is suing the zoo after the young men climbed into the cage to taunt the tiger? Mark Geragos probably asked for more time because he is busy chasing an ambulance.

parrot wrote on January 22, 2008 4:32 PM:

Gigantic prison terms aren't a deterrent to the person who is sentenced...they are a deterrent to the folks who are thinking about committing these crimes in the future. You aren't deterring someone if you are locking them up for the rest of their life...no, that is punishment and an example but not a deterrent to the person sentence...unless you count deterrence as keeping someone imprisoned...which in this case, where there is no believable contrition likely on the part of the sentenced, you might be justified in assuming.

michael valentine wrote on January 22, 2008 4:43 PM:

He has defrauded the people of the United States.

He has circumvented and debased the process and government of America.

He has stolen tax payers money and corrupted at least one congressman.

This man is a social parasite that deserves to rot in prison. He and his ilk buy the dignity of our political process for profit.

But if you feel that the worst thing he did was to get caught, well perhaps your empathy is telling.

Peter Connolly wrote on January 22, 2008 5:48 PM:

It may come as a shock to my critics but corruption is as old as the republic and arguably as old as humankind. 150 years ago or 50 years ago a 60 year sentence for something like this would have been inconceivable. He would have gotten a couple of years and then been paroled. And, if memory serves, life went on and most citizens went about their lives honestly without the need for this kind of mad deterrence. The fear of a criminal conviction and public disgrace was and would be now deterrence enough. The thirst for draconian punishment has nothing to do with rational criminology but is ideological, related to the hatred liberals now have for Republicans, corporate executives who run afoul of the new climate regarding back dating stock options and the like. I appeal to my fellow liberals(I am one) to stand aside from this and see what we are becoming. Liberals are coming to resemble a crowd in the Roman arena provided the doomed gladiator can be seen as the ideological enemy. See Scooter Libby, Ken Lay et al. In my view, liberals have lost sight of what the government ought to be doing, namely more good(S-Chip, health care, improved passenger railroads, and attacking global warming to name a few things) and less harm(get out of Iraq, stop imprisoning two million people--most of whom are no danger to anybody).

Dennis wrote on January 22, 2008 6:43 PM:

Pete Conally writes, "The thirst for draconian punishment has nothing to do with rational criminology but is ideological, related to the hatred liberals now have for Republicans...."

Only a self-centered Cyclops would make such an irrational statement. Wilkes and others have underminded the process of the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in order to line their own pockets.

If you knew your history, which you obviously don't, political persuasion plays no part in the lives of those who will ripoff the government nor anyone else.

That history has shown that short sencences and pardons have done nothing to disuade others. If you want examples, you only need check out the sentences of those associated with the Watergate break in. Which will provide you with proof perfect that these types deserve as much of a long sentence as they can get. The longer, the better.

"In my view, liberals have lost sight of what the government ought to be doing, namely more good(S-Chip, health care, improved passenger railroads, and attacking global warming to name a few things) and less harm(get out of Iraq, stop imprisoning two million people--most of whom are no danger to anybody)."

As a fellow "liberal", I challenge you to show where, over the past seven years, the conservatives have accomplished this, or even tried.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

And these types deserve as much of a long sentence as they can get.

Henry Holland wrote on January 22, 2008 7:31 PM:

The fashion crime of wearing a gray camouflage vest and bow tie is worth a year in solitary, at least.

nikto wrote on January 22, 2008 7:51 PM:

By that yardstick,

Bush should get the firing squad,
and Cheney should be drawn and quartered.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_239.html

HardHatVet wrote on January 22, 2008 7:56 PM:

As a Conservative, I have always supported the Death Penalty, because I feel it is a powerful deterent to crime.

The only problem is that, We in America have tended to use the DP against the poorest criminals, and never against the richest.

Perhaps times have changed enough to start considering an expansion of the Death Penalty to include white-collar criminals'
sometimes extraordinary crimes.

America may be at this turning point right now.

TheCynicalSkeptic wrote on January 22, 2008 8:27 PM:

In China he would have been publicly shot in the head and his family charged for the cost of the bullet.

the Walrus has raised a good point. Look for a pardon from the "compassionate conservative"
Gag me with a farking jack hammer.

puzzled wrote on January 22, 2008 10:49 PM:

How come Wilkes deserves 60 years and Duke Cunningham is only serving 7 years? I think that an elected official who accepts a bribe (and in Cunningham's case, asks for bribes), is at least as guilty as the person who offers the bribe. Actually, I think that Cunningham deserves a longer sentence than Wilkes.

don de drain wrote on January 23, 2008 12:13 AM:

Corruption may be as old as the Republic, but the type of corruption engaged in by Wilkes deserves severe punishment. This was not a situation of paying a few hundred $$ to fix a DUI. And if someone like Jefferson from LA gets convicted, he deserves similar treatment. These types of crimes directly threaten the integrity of our government.

As for those who whine that the desire for a long sentence to deter others from similar conduct is motivated by partisan hatred, I can only speak for myself when I say that you are absolutely wrong. And I do wonder if you will be whining this loudly when non-Republicans are facing stiff jail sentences for similar conduct.

disgusteddan wrote on January 23, 2008 9:50 AM:

David in NY,
You are right. A 60 year sentence is not a deterrent and would be too costly. What Wilkes and his ilk have done is TREASON! He should be executed and his wealth confiscated.
As said in earlier comments, Enron was a business deal and most (except for the employees) were greedy and got what they deserved. However, if the punishment actually fit the crime in that case, they too should never again see the light of day.