Huntsville Times calls for fairness and proportionality in Siegelman sentencing

Today's Huntsville Times editorial on the Siegelman case echoes some of the same concerns that I raised in yesterday's post.

Here are the Times editors:

No Alabamian, regardless of political party, should take pleasure in Siegelman's conviction or the sentence he may face.

Here's me:

...as much as I dislike Don Siegelman, I'm not at all thrilled that he will be spending time in jail for this.

The Times editors again:

Now federal prosecutors are asking U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to send Siegelman to prison for 30 years - a life sentence, in other words. It's hard to tell if prosecutors are serious or merely posturing. ...

Still, the enormity of a crime and the nature of a crime should determine the punishment, not political popularity or partisan allegiance.

Property crimes are not the same as crimes against people. Corruption isn't the same as murder, but murderers sometimes get far less than 30 years.

If it was acceptable for one judge in one court venue to keep Guy Hunt, a Republican, out of prison, it would be acceptable for another judge in another venue to do the same for Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

It's not as if the former governor will go scot-free. He will probably be legally barred from holding elective office and may have his license to practice law revoked.

The Siegelman case is not about compassion. It's about fairness, as defined by equitable treatment, and about proportionality. Prison time is not justified on either count.

And me:

Prosecutors are seeking 30 years in the hoosegow for Don Siegelman and 25 years for Richard Scrushy. Given the nature and magnitude of their crimes (or at least the crimes that they were actually convicted of), that seems far too excessive. In fact, I think that anything more than a year in jail and a big fine would be excessive. The fact that federal law would even allow the imposition of such stiff penalties for crimes of so little significance (i.e. non-violent offenses stemming from run-of-the-mill "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" forms of public corruption) strikes me as absurd.

Always nice to see the Times get something right.