One of the former elected officials in North Jersey caught violating his oath and the people’s trust by taking bribes in exchange for steering no-bid contracts pleaded guilty a few days ago, and, instead of expressing shame and contrition, offered “an explanation”. He acknowledged what he had done is a crime, but added that he had used the $15,000 bribe not for himself, (heavens, no!) but “for the community.” So, this disgraced former official wants to be treated as a modern day American Robin Hood (or should we say, a Robin Hood American?). He admittedly stole, but he did so (he wants us and the sentencing judge to believe) from the rich to give to the poor. No matter what evidence he may offer to prove his “explanation,” it should not suffice to get him leniency. The fact is that he stole from the taxpayers, who foot the bill for the tainted contracts with the added acquisition cost (read “the amount of the bribe”). Given the district he represented, the victims of this robbery, the taxpayers, can hardly be described as the rich. And by “the community” does he mean his constituents? A segment of them? Are they really the poor?

His defense counsel, sensing trouble, immediately disavowed the Robin Hood explanation as “irrelevant.” But, having offered it, his client should suffer the consequences; instead of the leniency for which he was clearly hoping, the judge should throw the proverbial book at him for his demonstrated lack of remorse and his chutzpah, as we say in Spanish.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.