| My own thoughts tend toward Hurlbert's humiliating defeat to a teabagger in seeking the Republican nomination for State senate. Did he think (or know) this would ensure support of the establishment for his next attempt at higher office?
Anyway, I can't think of a worse precedent to let stand than overtly excusing serious personal crimes by the rich solely due to the implied loss of income in prosecuting them. I know prosecutorial discretion is an important part of the Justice system, but I don't think too rich to jail was what any defenders of that principle have in mind. I also know some cynics will inevitably point out that the rich have usually received much better treatment by the system for their misdeeds, but there is an important threshold being crossed here in doing it so nakedly and brazenly.
Bonus irony from Hurlbert's profile:
As an experienced prosecutor, Mark knows it is important not to simply secure convictions, but to seek justice. He makes victims a priority and is dedicated to providing victims a strong voice in the justice system.
What say you, cyclist victim?
"Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway," Milo wrote. "Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case."
Brief perusal of the limited major news coverage of this seems to be gravitating toward the "drivers versus cyclists" angle. That's stupid and it's our fault if we leave cycling safety advocates alone on the field fighting this. This is completely about the fundamental principle of equality before the law regardless of wealth.
(h/t to digby)
Update (23:19) - Mark Matson provides:
UPDATE:
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.
What's happening is that prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time. What the victim wants, Hurlbert said, is for Erzinger to plead guilty to the felony of leaving the scene of accident, causing serious bodily injury. Under that deal, judgment would be deferred and the felony would be cleared from his record after a few years of good behavior. The misdemeanors, though, would stay on Erzinger's record permanently.
I think I see the semantic shift here. Erzinger was "charged" with the felony, but the DA will let it slide in a plea deal. I don't think the victim is primarily concerned about the technicalities of what charges were used, but the end result of what convictions were actually sought. He left a man for dead by the side of the road, no amount of casuistry will convince me that a couple misdemeanor charges will somehow be better punishment for that than a felony. Particularly not when the prosecutor admits letting him keep his high salary job is a key part of his thinking in the decision.
And clearly there will be no jail time whatever the "potential" - if the point is not to harm his ability to pay restitution to the serf, there's no way he spends time in jail.
That having the details of his egregiously unethical behaviour made very public is not already highly damaging to his employment prospects in his field really says a lot about that field. He really tried to get out of this, and would have if he wasn't caught. He'll probably get a promotion for that in the world of high finance. Maybe he and Jim Cramer can short a few stable companies into bankruptcy in order to pay his restitution. |
