Some non-celebratory thoughts on Spitzer

There’s been a lot of celebration (depending on your political persuasion) in the wake of Spitzer’s fall. My only contribution has been to argue that Spitzer’s integrity deficit was at least somewhat apparent before the election, and that this should alert us to the need to be careful in choosing our leaders. Here I want to make a different point.

Let me emphasize that I have absolutely no sympathy for Spitzer as a person. Like the denizens of Dante’s hell, he did get a sort of justice -- exactly what he dished out to others. But I want to caution against taking too much satisfaction from Spitzer's downfall. Like many Americans – from ordinary citizens to corporate executives – he found himself caught in the vast web of our criminal justice system. If he’s prosecuted, who can deny that, as for Lay and Skilling, it will be to some extent because of who he is, rather than for what he’s done. Should Spitzer really go to jail because of the way he took his own cash out of the bank? As Rick Hills appropriately asks, should Spitzer really be subject to federal prosecution for what is essentially a state misdemeanor?

In short, where is the concern for the over-use of the criminal laws and the expansion of federal power? (Bruce Kobayashi and I raised similar questions about somebody else who was as unpopular as Spitzer in some circles – Bill Lerach.) Those who revel in Spitzer’s downfall do so because of the questionable tactics he used for political gain. Yet the revelers are the ones who should be most disturbed about how Spitzer's downfall was brought about.

Comments

[Walked in those shoes]

As one who believes that over-criminalization is condemning the U.S. to live through the Middle Ages that our country was not around to experience, I nonetheless have no problem holding Mr. Spitzer, uniquely, to a different standard for criminal prosecution than the one I would apply to the rest of the world, precisely because he personally bears so much responsibility for setting that standard in the wrong place.

I rationalize this apparent hypocrisy by hoping that Mr. Spitzer's spectacular humiliation will send a message of caution (and a reminder of their own humanity) to overzealous prosecutors. If Mr. Spitzer and his colleaues have taught us anything, it's that nothing drives a message home like the threat of prison time.

Unfortunately, history shows that the next Eliot Spitzer will fail to recognize himself in the narrative of Client 9 and will confidently cast the first stone, before the cameras, at the next high-profile target. In fact, that very person is probably preparing his case against Spitzer now.

[M. Simon]

Money laundering is a Federal Crime.