Justice At Last
By Mitch Berg
Bush commutes the sentences of Ramos and Compean, two unjustly-imprisoned Border Patrol agents:
In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration.
Bush’s decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Look – we don’t want to encourage the precedent of police lying about their actions. But the two agents were scapegoated as part of a defense of an indefensible border policy.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Maybe the sentences were too harsh, sure; but when is a coverup by police of shooting people ever even vaguely okay?
And that’s precisely the message that it sends: even if you get caught, hand-in-the-cookie jar doing just that, and even if — unlike, say, here in Anokay County, where it get swept under the carpet — some prosecutor actually decides to do something about it, you’ll get sprung.
I don’t think that this is exactly the message that we want to be opening the Obama years with; they’ll be bad enough on that front, as it is.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“Maybe the sentences were too harsh, sure; but when is a coverup by police of shooting people ever even vaguely okay?”
When the victim is an outlaw?
January 19th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
The full story does make this not quite as clear cut as many on the right would say. But they have done time.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Chuck’s right: they had sentences commuted, they were not pardoned. That’s about the right balance here. They did wrong while they were doing a very tough job and they did time for that wrong. More would have been inappropriate for the particulars of this case.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I think that’d be a bad, bad precedent to set, Terry; if you don’t, I fear that the Obama years may enlighten you.
Chuck: yup; they’ve done time, and they’ll go through the rest of their lives as convicted felons. This is also true of many people who have not used badges to cover up shootings.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I completely agree these guys should have had at least a commutation of their sentences. I applaud the President for this action. it is probably the only time I would. Joel, I’m sorry you feel that way, but candidly, these will be FAR better years for the ideas of integrity and honesty and consensus than the past 8 have been – and for that much, I’m glad.
Terry – lord.. really??! So, police simply shooting criminals – i.e. capital punishment for whatever they happen to feel like merits it, is the sole province of police? No trial? Just shoot em’, eh? But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, talk is cheap about liberties among those on the right, but denying any of the ‘unwashed’ those same liberties hasn’t ever really bothered anyone on the right very much, at least not in my experience. Maybe you would like to explain yourself further, because teh appearance of what you’ve said is really bad.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Peev, I specifically used the word ‘outlaw’. An outlaw is not anyone who has committed a crime. I didn’t even say that the victim in this case was an ‘outlaw’.
Someone who is officially declared to be without the protection of the law is an ‘outlaw’.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Terry: in that case, it’s only okay to shoot hypothetical people and cover it up; I’ve got no problems with hypothetical shootings and hypothetical coverups, just the real ones.
As to Ramos and Compean, lessee, they’ll go through the rest of their lives as convicted felons with an intimate knowledge of the weakness of the Border Patrol service, little to no moral character, many connections in the Mexican drug trade, a great desire to earn lots of money, and skills that they can no longer use in their original trade.
How could anything possibly go wrong?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Joelr-
I think the offense is not black and white. If the border area is lawless (in the common use of the term, anyway) it seems unjust to prosecute only those the law can reach.
To put it another way: The coverup is offensive because it defrauds & perverts the law. Yet this same law is defrauded and perverted all the time in the borderlands and yet the law does nothing about it. Ignoring the details of the Ramos & Campeon case for the moment, there is a problem when law abiding citizens and police officers fear the reach of the law more than criminals do.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Perhaps, Terry; but there’s also a problem when people with guns and badges can routinely violate the law with impunity and then, in a rare instance when they get caught dead-bang to rights and get a prosecutor willing to do his job, and a jury willing to do theirs, get a sweetheart deal.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
They shot a drug smuggler but lied about it. The offense isn’t the shooting, it’s the cover-up.
Joel, what’s the right amount of punishment for that?
They were sentenced to 12 years in prison but Bush’s action lets them off with about 2 years. Why isn’t that long enough?
These guys actually got the right crook. What’s the right punishment for busting down the wrong door and blasting away at the homeowner (hint, in Minneapolis, it’s a Commendation).
Judgment call, I think Bush did right. Few cops will rampage on the off-chance they’ll get a Presidential Pardon.
.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
but candidly, these will be FAR better years for the ideas of integrity and honesty and consensus
This is always a dependeble venue for serious conversation punctuated by the occasional half-witted non-sequitur comic relief.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Joel, what’s the right amount of punishment for that?
I dunno; I’d guess that if they weren’t Special People, they’d get the same sentence that anybody else committing the same crime would. Which, frankly, I think is unfair — I think that those folks who take an oath to uphold and enforce the laws should get punished more severely when, after due process, they’re found guilty of violating the very same laws that they’d gotten paid to enforce.
But they didn’t they got pretty down-the-middle sentences, given the offense. Maybe that’s a bug with the Federal sentencing system and guidelines; I certainly know some criminal defense lawyers who think so. If we’re going to be outraged and start making exceptions, how about some fatherless kid from some dead-end neighborhood who didn’t have all the incredible life advantages that Ramos and Compean had before they went corrupt?
As to whether or not it works in a negative way pour encouragez les autres, I think the system is already sufficiently badly screwed up — and yes, at least they didn’t get medals, a la Minneapolis SWAT; encouraging the screwup further, with bonuses for Special People, is exactly the wrong way to go.
That said, I guess it’s traditional that, at the end of an administration, special people get special treatment. I find it a disgusting tradition, whether it’s Eric Holder covering for terrorists so that they can get sprung after decades, or this sort of thing, but I’m one of those folks who believes in that whole law, order, and mercy thing, not special rules depending on which team somebody appears to be playing for.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Countdown until the time when Pernicious Peev will no longer have his favorite whipping boy… commence countdown.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The drug smuggler that was shot was given a provisional visa in return for his testimony. Joelr, who would have been harmed if the agents had been subjected to administrative discipline rather than a trial for assault with a deadly weapon? Ironically it seems that Ramos and Campian were caught in the crossfire between advocates for the smuggler, DHS, and congress.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Terry: all of us are harmed when the guardians of law and justice get a slap on the wrist for concealing evidence.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I would say that all of us lose as well when a prosecutor hands out visas to drug smugglers so he can hang a scalp or two on his belt.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Someday Badda, you’ll be able to make it through the day without needing to comment when I comment… like someday you’ll be able to make it through the day without an absorbent undergarment…
Kermit- I’m sorry, but if you consider Bush to reflect integrity, we have a vast difference of opinion of what integrity means.
Terry – outlaw is a widely used term, your specific, and technical definition doesn’t mean the same thing as the generally accepted view, which is someone who is a. a known criminal in some way b. on the run from the law – I don’t condone ANYONE getting a free pass on shooting ANYONE where the life of the shooter is not threatened and/or the shootee is a known, violent offender who oterhwise poses a great danger to society.
I’m not as familiar with the case as Joel – I defer to his normally FAR greater wisdom than the average commentor here on this blog (or author) – if he feels these guys were given a fair shake for doing a rotten thing, then I’m likely to take his word for it, and no sense if vigilanteism excuses the law ENFORCERS for taking the law into their hands to suddenly become law DECIDERS/AJUDICATORS. It’s not their role, and it sure as heck isn’t their right. Excusing it lacks integrity (take note Kermit) – excusing it merely trades one evil, one foul actor, for another, and it creates and abides a god-complex cop (assuming what Joes says is true, is in fact true). My understanding of the case was that these guys had been given a raw deal – if they weren’t, if they unlawfully shot a suspect, even one KNOWN to be a criminal, then they were given too light a sentence (by the commutation offered by Bush) because commuting that sentence tells the NEXT border agent to shoot first, worry later and maybe this time it will be a kid – accidentally of course – but caused by a sense of invulnerability and a lack of accountability. Cops who are GOOD cops don’t want that, they understand it undermines their ability to do their jobs, it makes the public no longer trust them. That’s ethics, that’s integrity.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
“Outlaw” is not the same as “criminal”, penigma, despite its common use. Nevertheless I forgive your misunderstanding. Vade in pace.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:47 am
I defer to his normally FAR greater wisdom than the average commentor here on this blog (or author) – snide, condescending commentary…
Who was it who was complaining about “snide, condescending commentary…”?
Oh yeah. Peev, you ignorant slut.
There is a strain of insanity on this blog. People who hope Peev will realize how idiotic his commenting is, and hope he will change.
Maybe he needs a nice warm cup of HopeyChangitude.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Peev ain’t so bad. He just makes the mistake of assuming people that believe differently than he does are evil. His error is categorical.
Angry Clown, on the other hand . . . well, I hope I am not revealing any secrets when I say that his true name is VOLDEMORT!
January 20th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I would say that all of us lose as well when a prosecutor hands out visas to drug smugglers so he can hang a scalp or two on his belt.
Terry, that sort of thing happens all the time; prosecutors frequently give a sweetheart deal to one criminal to get the goods on another. I’m far more offended when the crack dealer’s girlfriend gets nailed by the boyfriend’s testimony — he’s given the good deal so he’ll flip on his supplier, and throws her in as an extra — than I am over this. Crack dealers’ girlfriends are no great benefit to society; crooked cops are a clear and present danger.