I would like to add to this discussion that I had conversations with two
lawyers who specialize in criminal law about Smiley's so-called cooperation
and the effect it had on his sentencing. They both said that revealing the
extent of a person's crimes in fact often helps produce recommendations from
prosecutors for reduced sentences. They also observed, however, that some
of this cooperation is totally cynical on the criminal's part. Some
criminals keep quite detailed records of their crimes for barter if they are
caught. In other words, they trade a precise accounting of their activities
for leniency. Prosecutors and the police like that because it helps them
quickly clear up numerous crimes and saves them the trouble of developing
the cases on their own, which they probably could do if they were so
inclined. I think, for example, that all of the affected libraries in
Smiley's case could have developed their own list of losses without Smiley's
revelations. After all, prosecutors had eight cases of theft that they were
sure they could have proven but chose not to prosecute. That's what Smiley
got in exchange for his revelations--first time offender status and a single
federal count, even though he confessed to 97 thefts. Smiley, for whatever
reason, obviously kept good records.
If you buy into this cynical game, that's fine. I for one don't.
Everett Wilkie
2006 Carey Road
Kinston, NC 28501
ewilkie@ix.netcom.com
252-522-0261
Cell: 717-419-9419
"Join us for our groundbraking"
--Sign