Few have real reason to target president

 

In the Sept. 13 edition of the Las Vegas Sun, Editor Brian Greenspun put into words what I have been thinking since the Starr report was released last week.  He notes that political life has become rather ugly in recent decades and this "is a creature of our making.  For we have allowed the deterioration of our political system to occur, either through our actions or, more likely, our inaction." 

He also notes that the "diatribes on nightly television" are not so much new, but rather have grown more hateful and venomous.  I would like to add my own expertise as a criminologist to this question.

It seems to me that there are several interrelated issues here.  First, the political.  The law and the legal system are almost by definition part of the political process.  After all, the very definition of "crime" is a result of legislation.  The entire criminal justice system was a political creation.

Secondly, we have the often vague notion of "crime" (never mind the ambiguities of "high crimes and misdemeanors"), which is not that easily defined.  In fact, every "crime" takes place within a specific context and that no two crimes are alike. 

Many commentators and politicians have commented at length (in fact ad nauseam) about the alleged "crimes" President Clinton has committed, such as "perjury," "obstruction of justice," etc.  A close examination of these and every other crime on the law books in this country will tell you that there are many variations within each and they occur within varying social contexts.

On far too many occasions I have heard talk about these "serious crimes," or "major felonies" that Clinton has allegedly committed.  It reminds me of the use, by both the media and law enforcement officials, of the FBI's "index crimes" when remarking about recent trends in crime rates. 

The offense categories (murder, rape, larceny-theft, etc.) are often referred to as "serious crimes" (as in the phrase "serious crime down 5% last year).  These "serious crimes" range from shoplifting to rape and murder.  Even the word "felony" can range from the theft of someone's bicycle to first degree murder.

Now we come to the "crimes" President Clinton has been accused of.  As Mr. Greenspun notes, this case is not one where the president is accused of "selling secrets to an enemy country.  This is not a case of a president using the power of his office to subvert the will of the American people."

Neither is this a case of a president using his office to obtain inside information about the stock market or, as Nixon did, use the FBI or CIA to spy on his "enemies" or be involved in a break-in of the opposing party's headquarters and then covering in up. 

No, what this is, as Greenspun notes, is little more than sex!  It is an affair that, like any other affair, is done in secrecy where attempts are made to prevent the secret from getting out and even of lying about it.

It should be noted that for many years criminologists have surveyed the general public about their attitudes concerning the relative seriousness of various "crimes" and those of perjury, obstruction of justice and the like consistently at the bottom of the list in terms of seriousness.  The public does not consider these all that serious and neither do they want the president to be impeached. 

Then there is the punishment itself.  Like the concept of crime, "punishment" has many different dimensions and meanings.  Someone once wrote a very perceptive book called The Process is the Punishment.  The general thesis of this book is that in most criminal cases the actual process one goes through after being caught for committing a crime (the arrest, being taken to jail and booked, perhaps having one's name appear in the local newspapers, etc.) is quite an ordeal. 

The humiliation itself is enough to discourage further lawbreaking.  In the case of Clinton, the holder of the highest office in the land, if not the world, the process that has already taken place is quite a punishment indeed - his private life has been exposed for all to see and the degree of humiliation he has already experienced may be enough. Perhaps some form of censure would suffice as additional punishment.

One closing comment is in order.  What most people will realize if they do some serious reflecting is that most of us are capable of separating our public or work life from our personal life.  Millions of citizens - many who in fact are reading this right now - suffer from numerous problems, some of which are serious addictions like alcohol, drugs, sex and more, and many are presently or have had an adulterous relationship.  Yet through it all they manage to carry on their work or career capably. Many of these kinds of individuals are serving the country quite well as senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, police chiefs, state legislators, etc.  We should not condone what the president did and his behavior has not exactly been what children should admire and emulate.  At the same time, millions of children are already exposed on a daily basis the immoral behavior of millions of adults.  Will those who are pointing the finger at him demand even more punishment?  Perhaps we should heed the words someone once said, that "he who points the [accusatory] finger at another has three pointing at himself."

 

Las Vegas Sun, 9/23/98.