“Absent the government’s recommendation that the defendent be given consideration for his cooperation,” NH phone-jammer Allen Raymond would have been sentence to 6 months in prison plus a fine of more than $30,000. Instead, the time in prison was reduced, first to five months, then finally to three.
Here’s a small excerpt from the February 9 written statement by US District Judge Joseph DiClerico, Jr, at the conclusion of United States of American v. Allen Raymond (Criminal No. 04-141-01-JD):
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as American citizens and any scheme or plan that interferes with that right is despicable and strikes at the very heart of our American democratic processes…
the offense conduct in this case was serious and a sentence of incarceration is necessary to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, and to afford adequate deterrence to the criminal conduct of others who might consider any scheme to interfere with the right of citizens to get to the polls so that they can exercise their right to vote.
Judge DiClerico accepted, with a reluctance obvious in his four-page statement, the government’s request to lower Raymond’s sentence and fine. But he added 200 hours of community service, writing:
The victims of the offense were the organizations and their workers who were working hard to get people to the polls so they could exercise their right to vote; the voters who may have been seeking help in getting to the polls; voters in general; and the democratic process in general. The conduct in this case violated the integrity of our voting system. The defendant’s actions hurt the community as a whole, and it is therefore appropriate that he spend some time repaying the community, if in only some small way, for what he has done.
SO ORDERED.
This isn’t a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. Judge DiClerico was nominated to the Federal bench by US President George Herbert Walker Bush. This is a dirty-tricks-versus-honest-people issue.
The defendant’s cooperation with the USA bought him some consideration in this sentencing document. Legalistic quibbles about the meaning of “harass” or the different ways to block other people’s phone lines didn’t bring any benefit at all.