Sheldon Silver Goes Down: Is the Federal System Right or Wrong in its Double Jeopardy Clauses? White-Collar Criminality and its Social Status
New York State has been home to some of the largest
white-collar crimes in the entire country, and many citizens throughout the
United States tend to view the business and political professionals in the area
as corrupt and unethical in their practices.
Unfortunately, some of these outside interpretations are true and
criminal activities are performed by public officials in the alleged liberal
state. For example, Sheldon Silver was a
well-known politician in New York for many years, and even gained a sufficient
amount of respect to become the Speaker of the New York State Assembly for over
twenty years (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
Because of his long-term political work, he was able to acquire many
connections in the private sector, and many of his connections included being
used as a consultant and liaison for legal and political matters (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
Of this, it was his legal
consultation work that ended up getting him into trouble in a federal criminal
court in 2015 (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
Specifically, Silver was indicted on seven counts of criminal
allegations that were all associated with corruption and kick-back charges from
organizations seeking relief from taxes and other state regulations, as well as
wanting funds for research projects (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). Silver was accused of making approximately four
million dollars from two law firms that used him for referral and consulting services
and using his political ties to allocate monies to a medical researcher in New
York City for monetary gain (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). More specifically, Silver was paid by the law
firms Goldberg & Iryami and Weitz & Luxenberg for referral fees for individuals
seeking to bring asbestos-related lawsuits, a medical researcher that was
performing studies at Columbia University, and received monies from two
development companies seeking to alleviate what they perceived as monetary
burdens from government agencies (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). His first trial lasted approximately one
month and resulted in a finding of guilt that included a prison sentence of
twelve years (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
However, the Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York
reversed the conviction and Silver never served any prison time because of a
Supreme Court decision in the McDonnell v. United States case and an improper
charge to the jury by the presiding judge (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). Recently, Silver was retried on the
corruption charges and, again, found guilty (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). This trial only lasted about two weeks this
time and his sentencing was scheduled for July of this year (Weiser, 2018;
Whitehouse, 2018). This time around Silver received a seven-year prison sentence. His attorneys plan to appeal this conviction as well.
The federal inquiry into
Silver’s corruption and other unlawful behaviors is full of many problems and
is a great example to use when discussing white-collar crime and social control
theories/tactics that are associated with the specific type of criminality. More specifically, the investigation was
started by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s
Office in New York City (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). A tip was received about Silver and many
other politicians in New York participating in money-making schemes because of
illegal desires from wealthy organizations (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). The investigation provided some details about
corrupt activities by Governor Andrew Cuomo and his aides, other state-level
politicians who acted as liaisons for the businesses that were seeking
contracts, tax reliefs, and political connections to ensure profit and
monopolies in their industry (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). In fact, the investigation led to the
disbanding of an anticorruption commission in the State of New York because
many of the members on the commission were using the system to eliminate any
state-level investigations about their unlawful conduct (Weiser, 2018;
Whitehouse, 2018). Moreover, the
indictment and initial trial of Silver, essentially, became a marketing tool
for law enforcers in the federal system.
Being more precise, Silver was targeted because of the solid evidence
against him and the federal law enforcers did not attempt to prosecute many
other public figures because of the sufficiency that was found in the
indictment and conviction of Silver (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
Conflict theories and
Marxist ideas comes to light in this incident.
For example, the federal government could not have sought to prosecute
other state-level politicians because of the amount of time and money that
would be spent on pre-trial investigations, court proceedings, and the
difficulties that arise when prosecuting individuals who have political
connections and the wealth to hire an experienced legal team (Friedrichs, 2010;
Reiman & Leighton, 2017). Also, when
the conviction was reversed by the Appellate Division the case law that was
used provided another example of how social control tactics for white-collar
criminality is in line with notions that are within conflict and Marxist theories (Friedrichs,
2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017; Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). Particularly, the McDonnell case describes
how some activities by social elites are not considered illegal and that
receiving gifts or monetary contributions while in public office can be deemed
acceptable at times (Friedrichs, 2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017; Weiser,
2018; Whitehouse, 2018). The legal
system allows specific behaviors to not be prosecuted because of the known
activities that occur in the political world, that is. The Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court,
infer that bribery and kickbacks are not always illegal if they are formatted
in a specific fashion – which is an inclination that social status is relevant
in legal matters in the United States (Friedrichs, 2010; Reiman & Leighton,
2017; Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
Withal, the Court of Appeals also stated that the charge to the jury by
the district court judge was improper and thus required a reversal of the
conviction (Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
This also brings up notions that are found within conflict and Marxist theories
and the social control methods for white-collar criminality. Precisely, the lack of effective
investigations and prosecutions, coupled with the premises used for reversing
the initial criminal matter, suggests that social control tactics for white-collar
offenders and offenses can be bypassed or curtailed so that liability is not
produced for specific people in our society because of vague or incorrect
communication to juries – which is not typically found in non-white collar
criminal court processes (Friedrichs, 2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017).
The second trial confirms
the above-mentioned philosophies within social control processes for
white-collar offenders. That is, the
failed attempt to successfully prosecute Silver and his colleagues the first
time suggests that the court system is not always accurate, and nor are the additional
law enforcement agencies that were involved in this matter. Again, this rarely happens to
non-white-collar offenders, and implies that if a person has a particular
social status or has acquired a specific level of wealth that they can overcome
the rule of law that is applied to most other people in our society because of
inexact verbiage and previous decisions that cater to particular social
statuses (Friedrichs, 2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017). The fact that Silver was an atypical offender
worked to his advantage in other words, and the legal system meted out a method
of social control that catered to his wealth and social status in the first
trial – and even set precedence for future political corruption cases
(Friedrichs, 2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017; Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018).
In sum, social control
methods for white-collar offenses were not upheld in this case initially and
the legal practitioners ended up spending more time on the issue than planned
(Weiser, 2018; Whitehouse, 2018). It is
being suggested by this author that this lack of effective prosecution occurred because
of the social status of Silver and his cohorts.
If this case had street-level offenses and did not include an experienced
criminal defense team, then there may not have been a reversal of the original
conviction. Additionally, the reversal
by the Appellate Division, and Supreme Court decision in the McDonnell case,
infers that white-collar offenders – and specifically politicians – can use
their social status and wealth to their benefit when dealing with legal matters
in the criminal justice system. In turn,
this brings up the notion that deterrent effects are not as strong as they
should be in white-collar cases and may even be understood by white-collar
criminal offenders in a way that allows them to think that they can engage in illegal activities if they believe
that they have a particular social status or financial background (Friedrichs,
2010; Reiman & Leighton, 2017).
References:
Friedrichs, D. O.
(2010). Trusted criminals: White collar
criminality in contemporary society
(4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2017).
The rich get richer and the poor
get prison: Ideology,
class, and criminal justice (11th
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Weiser, B.
(2018, May 11). Sheldon Silver is convicted in 2nd corruption trial. The New
York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/nyregion/sheldon
silver-retrial-guilty.html.
Whitehouse, K.
(2018, May 9). Sheldon Silver’s
corruption retrial ready to head to the jury.
New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2018/05/09/sheldon-silvers
corruption-retrial-ready-to-head-to-the-jury/. 
Comments
Post a Comment