Sentencing the Good Doctor

This post is a little self-indulgent. If you are reading this blog, you probably already know about Dr. Christopher Thompson, the road-rage driver from Mandeville Canyon. You probably also know that he was sentenced to a five-year prison term last Friday, which will probably end up being closer to two years given how crowded California's prisons are. You may not care what I think about the sentence, or about the comments made about the sentence. I just haven't done a single "legal" post and don't want to falsely advertise what this blog is about. I wouldn't blame you for stopping reading right here though.

__________

For those who are still with me, I need to post a couple disclaimers. I am not a criminal lawyer, and I don't know exactly how California state sentencing works. That aside, I have seen a number of reactions to the sentence that interest me.

1) "5 years is more than murderers and rapists (or insert your favorite class of 'bad' criminal) get." Most people who say this cannot point to any instance where this actually happened, and it should therefore be discounted. Unless you can cite a case in which a defendant who committed a more serious crime received a lighter sentence, you have no evidence to support your argument, and I am entitled to ignore your opinion. But assuming for the sake of discussion that the statement is actually true, the argument ignores at least three factors.
First, reduced sentences are often the result of plea bargains. Dr. Thompson actually took his case to trial. Trials are expensive and time consuming. We give defendants who avoid trials a break, whether it's because they have "accepted responsibility," or they have "saved the taxpayers money." It may not be fair in all cases, but unless we want the justice system to grind to a halt or cost many times what it does now, this incentive structure is probably necessary. The truly comparable case is one where another defendant charged with murder or rape took his case to trial in California this century, was convicted and got a lighter sentence. Not sure you are going to find that case.
Second, sentences are usually determined based on the crime of which a defendant is convicted rather than some subjective measure of how badly they behaved. Here, the jury convicted Dr. Thompson of assault and causing serious bodily injury. The comparable case is a stabbing or assault with a baseball bat. Is a 5 year sentence too much for a defendant convicted of repeated stabbing two men, or beating them with a baseball bat badly enough to seriously injure them?
Third, you can always find a case where an even worse sentence was imposed for conduct that's not as bad. For example, a defendant possessing 50 grams of crack cocaine (just over 3 table spoons or 1/4 cup) is subject to a 10 year mandatory minimum. Virtually no one says selling crack cocaine should be legal, but 10 years for a relatively small amount seems extreme.

2) "Alexendar Hidalgo got 2 years for a DUI hit-and-run death." This is a more interesting point because it's an actual case to compare with. I am not sure how I feel about the difference between those two sentences. I see two likely explanations though. First, the DUI case seems to have been a plea bargain. See above for the reasons why plea bargains are treated differently than trials. Second, the law generally distinguishes between intentional behavior and merely reckless behavior, imposing greater penalties for people who mean to injure than those who just don't care what happens. The DUI driver did not intend to run down and kill a cyclist, even if he did not apparently care whether he did or not when he got into the car knowing his was drunk. On the other hand, the jury found that Dr. Thompson deliberately set out to hurt the two victims. Maybe we should weight the harm to the victim more than the defendant's state of mind, but that's a systemic change that should be considered on a more general scale than comparing individual cases.

3) "This was an accident/he would not hurt anyone." A number of Dr. Thompson's defenders have said that the sentence is fundamentally unfair since this was an accident, and he did not intend to hurt anyone. That is certainly the story he told at trial. The jury, however, did not believe him and convicted him of deliberately attempting to injure the two cyclists. Given his statements to the 911 operator and the police officer, and the evidence of his prior behavior, it is easy to see why the jury chose to reject his explanation. His remedy is an appeal of the conviction, not a lighter sentence. Similarly, suggesting that the cyclists lied is just re-arguing the fact of conviction. That's not normally a sentencing issue.

4) "He said he was sorry." Of course he did . . . at the sentencing. He had repeated opportunities to say he was sorry and regretted his actions before that time and he didn't take them. At the time of the crash, he said that they weren't seriously injured and that he was trying to teach them a lesson. At the trial, he said that he didn't slam on his brakes, that they started it, and claimed that the incident was their fault. I suspect that he is sorry for his actions because of the consequences to his life, rather than sorry because of the consequences to the lives of the cyclists. His apologies are simply too little, too late to really matter.

5) "The Doctor should have been sentenced to five years of community service or free medical care." Some have argued that imprisoning Dr. Thompson is a waste of resources -- his medical knowledge and skills will go to waste. While true, this argument proves too much. Any time a doctor, other health care worker, engineer, or really any other productive member of society commits a serious crime, society loses the benefit that individual would have created. Being important or productive, or having the ability to "save lives," is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, nor should it be. I think that criminals should be sentenced based upon (a) the seriousness of what they did; and (b) their criminal history. Two people with prior clean records should receive just about the sentence for the same offense, regardless of what they do.