« Miami sound machine | Main | So fired »

April 14, 2006

Everyone's a victim

Michele Mandel pretty much laid out the Toronto Sun's overarching editorial philosophy in yesterday's edition when she decided that because she was unable to maintain rationality in the face of a tearful victim impact statement, the $2 million payout to shooting victim Louise Russo was above reproach:

…she is the victim here. If she can live with the sentences they were given -- if they are enough to allow her to sleep at night -- then who are we to tell her otherwise?

Amazing. Look, I don't begrudge Russo in the slightest for taking the two million smackers — it would have been silly not to, especially since the sentences handed to those who crippled her seem if anything harsher than one would expect — but there are more people implicitly involved in this situation than just Russo and the convicted. These dickheads walked into a California Sandwiches location and sprayed the place with bullets in an effort to kill another dickhead who wasn't even there. You hear "it could have been anyone" a lot, but it's rarely as true as it is in this case. Fate frowned on Louis Russo on April 21, 2004, but it could just as easily have been any Torontonian with a taste for absolutely delicious Italian sandwiches.

Especially because the crime was so random, because all Torontonians were potential victims, the plea agreement should have been rejected on the basis that it inevitably encourages the perception that jail time can be offset by cash payment. The justice system isn't ever just about giving the victim what he or she wants, after all — it's about showing citizens that the right thing will be done. Other than in hopes of leniency, what possible other motivation was there for the perpetrators or their benefactors to offer this money in the context of a plea agreement? If they were truly overcome by guilt, they could have just cut Russo a cheque once the trial ran its course.

There is also the small matter of where this money came from, a rather crucial question that very few seem interested in asking. Defense lawyer Joseph Neuberger "did not say if any money involved came from criminal proceeds," the Toronto Star reported. Yikes — you'd think he might have some kind of plausible denial ready for the media. Surely it's common sense that the money came from crime. People such as those who shot up the California Sandwiches outlet don't normally have millions of virtuously begotten dollars lying about. No matter, says the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation :

[CCVF founder] Mr. [Joe] Wamback -- who noted that people convicted of manslaughter have occasionally received no jail time at all -- argued that the key to the agreement is that Ms. Russo will soon have a desperately needed financial cushion.

"We've talked to hundreds of thousands of victims and I haven't found one who wants the money; they need the money," said Mr. Wamback
…
[Lawyer] Mr. [Timothy] Danson agreed that it is irrelevant where the defendants find the money to pay restitution. In a different situation, he noted, there would be nothing to stop Ms. Russo suing and perhaps being awarded money that might have come from the proceeds of crime.

Which would be between Ms Russo and the thugs, as it should be. Like I said, it's not Russo taking the money that I have a problem with. Just as the justice system should be extremely concerned with the optics of this plea bargain, it should utterly refuse to broker the redistribution of ill-gotten money to crime victims. Each of those two million dollars has its own victim attached to it, after all, even if you can't pinpoint her identity or hear her tearful story.

(Cross-posted to the Shotgun.)

Posted by Chris Selley at April 14, 2006 04:08 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/363

Comments

Posted by: Jason at April 17, 2006 08:44 AM