Judicial Discretion or Hypocrisy and Corruption?
A case that deserves our attention: covicted by a jury of embezzelment and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle – both major felony offences. And her sentence?
Every newsletter on MYLIFEplus25 is public and free to everyone, but we ask for your support. Please consider becoming a patron now to help fund our ongoing legal efforts that dare to speak truth to power. This isn't journalism, it's activism! And these efforts are only possible through the support of good people just like you who believe that change is possible.
—
Demesia Padilla
A quality before the law is a fundamental tenet of democracy. When a judge hand down a favorable sentence for criminality to certain individuals and not others it breeds this trust, animosity, and ultimately further defiance to the law. New Mexico has a long and storied history of public corruption scandles.
In recent years we’ve seen former Secretary of State Diana Duran, who illegally gambled campaign contibutions be sentenced to a paltry 30 days in jail, plus fines.
Followed two years later in 2017 by State Senator Phil Griego who was sentenced to 18 months in prison, plus fines for fraud, bribary and other public corruption charges.
And the latest in New Mexico’s public corruption lineup involves former tax secretary Demesia Padilla. A case that deserves our attention: covicted by a jury of embezzelment and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle – both major felony offences. And her sentence?
Phil Griego
Dianna Duran
District Judge Cindy Mercer suspended 18 years of prison time in favor of five years of supervised probation.
Wow!
That’s one hell of a favor (disguised as discretion). What we all must be wondering from this, what does a judicial favor like this cost?
Is it prorated by the year, or is there a discount for the more years you buy? Or, is a favor of this magnitude paid for with political currency rather than the standard greenbacks?
Regardless of which currency was used, what’s very clear is that buttons were pushed, calls were made, and in the end our very concept of justice was desecrated.
Polls from the Pew Research Center and Gallup consistently show that public trust in our governmental institutions is failing, not helped by the messaging this type of backroom dealing does to the legitimacy of our judicial system.
Public officials need to be held to the same standards as everyone else. Actually,these individuals should be held to an even higher standard.
These judges don't seem to understand that this type of impunity actually serves to encourage criminality. Anyone who has ever presided over a position of power knows that with the power comes the temptations of power – corruption and theft go hand in hand.
And when the colleagues to these offenders see the delicate and preferential treatment handed down to these offenders, they feel emboldened.
Recently in an ABQ Journal op-ed piece retired police/parole officer Joan Marentes labelled, "accountability" as the key factor in New Mexico's crime problem. She said:
N.M. judges have "discretion in sentencing" and can suspend any, or all, of a sentence, with the exception of certain enhancements, averaging one year. Plea deals run rampant and reduce sentencing on the underlying charge significantly.
Judicial discretion in sentencing further reduces consequences, often down to near-zero accountability, with deferred and conditional discharge sentences for violent and serious felony crimes.
Apparently today's synonym for corruption is "judicial discretion." If someone has money, power, or influence then this same discretion can be exercised to alleviate consequences from criminal behavior.
As voters we need to make sure that any judge that uses judicial discretion to pad the fall from power for officials who step into public corruption don't stay on the bench.
Then we need state representatives to draft legislation that automatically forfeits any pension or public benefit for criminally disgraced public officials.
Judge Cindy Mercer
Finally, we need a public list of corrupt judges. We don't need to have actual criminal charges or police investigations to push these individuals off the bench. When a judge suspends 18 years of prison for an instance of public corruption it's apparent that we're dealing with more corruption, not discretion – there is a difference.
Anytime a judge suspends time there needs to be transparency and public awareness. There very well may be legitimate reasons for exercising discretion. In instances of drug addiction both the offender and society may be better served through rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration. The same in instances of mental disabilities.
Situations that bring people into criminality are varied and we need judges who are willing to consider underlying circumstances or causes, and brave enough act accordingly.
Nevertheless there needs to be transparency so that the public is informed and understands the decisions being made on its behalf.
—
Thank you for supporting MYLIFEplus25 and for reading today’s publication. All posts are public, so feel free to share it.
To help support even more please take a moment to subscribe to my podcast on one of the following channels:
Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mylifeplus25/id1562605207
Google Podcasts:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy81NThjMWE5MC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw==
Spotify:
And follow me on Twitter here: Follow @lifeplus25
Follow me on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/MYLIFEplus25-106918954788500
Look out for next week’s publication.