A week ago today, the trial of former police officer and City-County councilor Lincoln Plowman ended in a guilty verdict on charges of bribery and attempted extortion. If you believe the media commentary, accompanied by the out of context video segment in which Plowman is seen receiving money, the appearance of criminal impropriety seems reasonable and even stereotypical of a Hollywood B-movie underworld scene. However, the totality of facts presented seems to paint a different picture altogether (although an untrained, anonymous, unaccountable, jury thought otherwise). There was certainly far more evidence to consider in support of Mr. Plowman’s position than the media touched on or the public will ever care to consider.
The charges were one of “attempt”. Unlike other types of crimes (murder, theft, rape, incest, etc), attempted extortion and bribery are not as clear in terms of when does an action actually constitute extortion and bribery. The definition is easy enough to understand; but the substance, unless explicitly stated, is a matter of interpreting internal and unstated intent on the part of the actor. That is a difficult thing to do. The water becomes even muddier when the person in question is a private business owner, politician and law enforcement officer.
That grainy black and white video all of us saw on television has a context; a four month long context. The defense argued the payment that Mr. Plowman received on December 22, 2009 - before being confronted by the F.B.I. - was suggested early on in the relationship between Plowman and the fabricated strip club owner, later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent. This claim was documented in the audio recordings made by the FBI. In addition, Plowman requested that the cash payment be documented through an IRS10-99 form which was consistent with his off-duty/private business employment practices. The whole situation simply does not square with someone extorting or seeking a bribe.
The government’s prosecution of Mr. Plowman was a point, counter-point presentation; it was not a settled matter. I liken it to two separate Christian denominations arguing over the interpretation of the same statements. One group claims a specific verse means one thing while another group says otherwise. Or an even better analogy is the contention between creationist (Politico Monk and Jedna Vira) and evolutionist. Both sides of the debate have for their examination the same set of evidences; yet each side arrives at two different conclusions.
No question, the jury had its work cut out for them. Their duty was to critically examine the entirety of evidence presented by the prosecution inductively. Unfortunately, I don’t think they considered it very deeply. Their short deliberation is indicative of prejudgment regardless of their final determination. Instead, I believe emotionalism likely drove their decision more than anything else. Do we believe Lincoln Plowman was guilty of attempted extortion and bribery? No, we do not. Was he guilty of a great number of sins against God, his family, and his community? Yes, he was. But, while all crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes. In this case, the out come may be celebrated by some of the more conspiratorial opponents, but we think otherwise.
Nonetheless, we did not have a say in the matter. A jury said he was guilty and in the end that is all that matters as far as our criminal justice system is concerned. So what now?
Why does our government send convicted criminals to prison? 1) Rehabilitation? With recidivism rates over 70%this doesn’t seem to be a logical reason, although it is a stated purpose. The heart can only be “reformed” with a willing mind. 2) Punitive? Punishing bad behavior is certainly a function of our government and has a rational purpose. Punishment, whether imprisonment or some other form, can help prevent the specific offender (specific prevention) and others who would commit similar crimes (general prevention) from engaging in behavior the government deems morally wrong or illegal. But how hypocritical is it to punish behavior that our elected leaders routinely engage in. Isn’t It common practice for local, state and federal politicians to take money from lobbyists for election campaigns and personal ventures? The third and final reason to incarcerate a criminal is to 3) protect society. This is probably the most important reason, and certainly pertains to violent criminals that would prey on society. What I have briefly described is the Utilitarianism Theory of crime and punishment; the 3 ways to reduce crime in society are incapacitation, deterrence and reform. However, one aspect of crime and punishment that isn’t addressed by the Utilitarianism Theory is MERCY. My question: Should Lincoln Plowman go to prison?
The very fact Lincoln Plowman was convicted of two felonies automatically disqualifies him for political office, and the profession of law enforcement. One of the intended outcomes of this whole trial and subsequent conviction was to protect society from Lincoln’s ability to defraud them again. Last Thursday’s conviction satisfies this objective. However, the government may have a desire to “make an example out of Lincoln”; thus satisfying the “general prevention” aspect of the Utilitarian Theory. If political corruption within our local, state and federal governments wasn’t so extensive, this might be a worthy objective. However, anyone trying to use this line of reasoning should be laughed off the debate floor. General prevention of crimes such as extortion and bribery are unrealistic and unlikely. If sending a drug dealer to prison for 10 years doesn’t prevent the next dealer from taking his place, why would anyone assume a lengthy prison sentence for Lincoln Plowman prevent bribery and extortion?
If incapacitation and deterrence are not effective reasons to incarcerate Lincoln, that leaves reformation. Those who do not know Lincoln, and base a judgment solely on information gathered from the federal prosecutor, gossip or the media, may render an unjust opinion about the “reform” that’s already taken place. Ask Lincoln about the past two years and you may be surprised where his heart was and where it’s come. Skeptics’ will say,” Everyone finds Jesus when they are facing prison time!” That is an over-generalized statement and does not apply to Lincoln Plowman. Sometimes people caught in a web of sin need to be rescued in a dramatic way. Lincoln genuinely thinks he didn’t violate federal law, but he is certain he was unethical, immoral, sinful and “walked a very thin line between legal and illegal.” Lincoln will never represent another constituent or wear a police badge; that chapter of his life is over, but a new one is beginning. A new life is exactly what he needed.
The charges were one of “attempt”. Unlike other types of crimes (murder, theft, rape, incest, etc), attempted extortion and bribery are not as clear in terms of when does an action actually constitute extortion and bribery. The definition is easy enough to understand; but the substance, unless explicitly stated, is a matter of interpreting internal and unstated intent on the part of the actor. That is a difficult thing to do. The water becomes even muddier when the person in question is a private business owner, politician and law enforcement officer.
That grainy black and white video all of us saw on television has a context; a four month long context. The defense argued the payment that Mr. Plowman received on December 22, 2009 - before being confronted by the F.B.I. - was suggested early on in the relationship between Plowman and the fabricated strip club owner, later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent. This claim was documented in the audio recordings made by the FBI. In addition, Plowman requested that the cash payment be documented through an IRS10-99 form which was consistent with his off-duty/private business employment practices. The whole situation simply does not square with someone extorting or seeking a bribe.
The government’s prosecution of Mr. Plowman was a point, counter-point presentation; it was not a settled matter. I liken it to two separate Christian denominations arguing over the interpretation of the same statements. One group claims a specific verse means one thing while another group says otherwise. Or an even better analogy is the contention between creationist (Politico Monk and Jedna Vira) and evolutionist. Both sides of the debate have for their examination the same set of evidences; yet each side arrives at two different conclusions.
No question, the jury had its work cut out for them. Their duty was to critically examine the entirety of evidence presented by the prosecution inductively. Unfortunately, I don’t think they considered it very deeply. Their short deliberation is indicative of prejudgment regardless of their final determination. Instead, I believe emotionalism likely drove their decision more than anything else. Do we believe Lincoln Plowman was guilty of attempted extortion and bribery? No, we do not. Was he guilty of a great number of sins against God, his family, and his community? Yes, he was. But, while all crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes. In this case, the out come may be celebrated by some of the more conspiratorial opponents, but we think otherwise.
Nonetheless, we did not have a say in the matter. A jury said he was guilty and in the end that is all that matters as far as our criminal justice system is concerned. So what now?
Why does our government send convicted criminals to prison? 1) Rehabilitation? With recidivism rates over 70%this doesn’t seem to be a logical reason, although it is a stated purpose. The heart can only be “reformed” with a willing mind. 2) Punitive? Punishing bad behavior is certainly a function of our government and has a rational purpose. Punishment, whether imprisonment or some other form, can help prevent the specific offender (specific prevention) and others who would commit similar crimes (general prevention) from engaging in behavior the government deems morally wrong or illegal. But how hypocritical is it to punish behavior that our elected leaders routinely engage in. Isn’t It common practice for local, state and federal politicians to take money from lobbyists for election campaigns and personal ventures? The third and final reason to incarcerate a criminal is to 3) protect society. This is probably the most important reason, and certainly pertains to violent criminals that would prey on society. What I have briefly described is the Utilitarianism Theory of crime and punishment; the 3 ways to reduce crime in society are incapacitation, deterrence and reform. However, one aspect of crime and punishment that isn’t addressed by the Utilitarianism Theory is MERCY. My question: Should Lincoln Plowman go to prison?
The very fact Lincoln Plowman was convicted of two felonies automatically disqualifies him for political office, and the profession of law enforcement. One of the intended outcomes of this whole trial and subsequent conviction was to protect society from Lincoln’s ability to defraud them again. Last Thursday’s conviction satisfies this objective. However, the government may have a desire to “make an example out of Lincoln”; thus satisfying the “general prevention” aspect of the Utilitarian Theory. If political corruption within our local, state and federal governments wasn’t so extensive, this might be a worthy objective. However, anyone trying to use this line of reasoning should be laughed off the debate floor. General prevention of crimes such as extortion and bribery are unrealistic and unlikely. If sending a drug dealer to prison for 10 years doesn’t prevent the next dealer from taking his place, why would anyone assume a lengthy prison sentence for Lincoln Plowman prevent bribery and extortion?
If incapacitation and deterrence are not effective reasons to incarcerate Lincoln, that leaves reformation. Those who do not know Lincoln, and base a judgment solely on information gathered from the federal prosecutor, gossip or the media, may render an unjust opinion about the “reform” that’s already taken place. Ask Lincoln about the past two years and you may be surprised where his heart was and where it’s come. Skeptics’ will say,” Everyone finds Jesus when they are facing prison time!” That is an over-generalized statement and does not apply to Lincoln Plowman. Sometimes people caught in a web of sin need to be rescued in a dramatic way. Lincoln genuinely thinks he didn’t violate federal law, but he is certain he was unethical, immoral, sinful and “walked a very thin line between legal and illegal.” Lincoln will never represent another constituent or wear a police badge; that chapter of his life is over, but a new one is beginning. A new life is exactly what he needed.
How much prison time should a man with no prior criminal record receive for attempted extortion and bribery? Let me ask this: How much prison time should a man who commits robbery, assault, arson, vehicle theft, fraud, and drug trafficking receive? Lincoln Plowman is facing 20 plus years in federal prison; although it isn’t likely he will receive the maximum. Some attorneys believe Lincoln is likely to receive a prison sentence of 4-10 years. History has taught us that police officers and politicians caught sinning, whether legal or not, are punished more severely than others due to the demand our public servants be “held to a higher standard.” Does it matter if Lincoln Plowman is a different man than he was two years ago, that he is remorseful, that he has 2young children and a wife, and a church that can vouch for his transformation? Justice isn’t always equal, and if Lincoln receives a punitive prison sentence similar to the ones listed below, there is also no logic and mercy in it.
Department of Justice 2009 Statistics:
Average Time Spent in Prison for: * Robbery (57months) * Assault (32 months) * Arson (36 months) * Vehicle Theft (18 months) *Fraud (17 months) * Drug Trafficking (24 months) * Weapons (26 months).
Despite Federal Prosecutor Joe Hogsett’s argument, Lincoln Plowman can no longer harm society, and imposing a lengthy sentence would only harm his family that depends on him.
Department of Justice 2009 Statistics:
Average Time Spent in Prison for: * Robbery (57months) * Assault (32 months) * Arson (36 months) * Vehicle Theft (18 months) *Fraud (17 months) * Drug Trafficking (24 months) * Weapons (26 months).
Despite Federal Prosecutor Joe Hogsett’s argument, Lincoln Plowman can no longer harm society, and imposing a lengthy sentence would only harm his family that depends on him.
(Written by Politico Monk and Jedna Vira)
Plowman betrayed the public trust...over a long period. He deserves a fitting term of imprisonment!
ReplyDeleteThis is a low-life, scumbag, weasel. He took an oath with total treason intended. I hope the court issues a fitting punishment.
What is a fitting punishment?
ReplyDeleteI think 3 years in the FBP is fair. He needs to pay for what he did.
ReplyDeleteJust trying to clarify your definitions: What does "pay" for what he did mean? Is this a victimless crime or is there a true victim? Does society need protected and therefore Lincoln must be incarcerated?
ReplyDeletePlowman has been a criminal for years. He just got caught recently. I certainly will look at those who "support" him with a jaundiced eye. Are they crooks too? Well I hope they are caught and sent to prison. Maybe Plowman will inform on them.
ReplyDeleteThis man has hurt many. He personally hurt me with his corrupt actions and my life has been horribly damaged. I lost my family, my job, my health, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have suffered for years and will probably suffer for the rest of my life because of this evil man.
It is some relief to hear that he now has to "pick weeds for spare change." Now if the feds could only get the rest of the Marion County crooks rounded up and convicted. Maybe Speedy and Day.
Anon 4:59,
ReplyDeleteYou cross blog posting campaign is duly noted. I believe the personal nature of the harm you claim he caused you to be of great importance. I would like to give you the opportunity to present these great injustices here on thePoliPit. We NEVER condone immoral behavior according to God's standard; including liars on our blog.
Please forward your story to us and so long as there is no foul language (we are family oriented) we will permit the discussion of your personal destruction at the hands of Lincoln; to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, loss of family, job and health.
I don't believe you are being truthful. I will explain why once you present your story.