Why was Wright’s sentence longer than Black’s?
When Superior Court Judge Henry Hight sentenced former state Rep. Thomas Wright to prison Monday to a minimum of 70 months, it was longer than former House Speaker Jim Black’s sentence of 63 months and former Rep. Michael Decker’s of 48 months. Why the disparity?
A key reason: Wright was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in state court. Black and Decker were sentenced in federal courts. And while fairness would seem to require that those sentenced for corruption ought to get sentences that are proportionate not just to the crime but also to other sentences for political corruption, the plain fact is there’s little attention given to what fairness might dictate. Everything depends upon the prosecutor, the charges brought, the jury’s makeup and decision, and the judge who delivers a sentence. And judges themselves, of course, must abide by the dictates of the differing federal and state sentencing guidelines. Federal judges particularly have to go through a long process before pronouncing sentences, and their discretion is limited, though not as much as it used to be. State judges’ discretion is also controlled by mitigating and aggravating factors.
For a thorough look at these cases, take a look at my Raleigh colleague Laura Leslie’s pondering on the disparities on her WUNC radio blog “Isaac Hunter’s Tavern.” Click here and scroll down to the section "Running the numbers." She covered the trial and her blogs over the past week include audio excerpts from the trial that are illuminating. As usual, she does a first-rate job of covering things.
She also notes that Rep. Wright never apologized for his missteps. Those of us who have covered trials before have noted that defiant defendants seem to be in extra jeopardy of longer sentences when they refuse to own up to crimes after they’re convicted. That raises another fairness factor: If you don’t agree that you’re guilty, you may spend even more time in prison.
Is that fair or unfair?
