Posted on 07/15/2006 8:48:17 PM PDT by Coleus
TRENTON -- New Jersey's leading law enforcement official on Thursday said she opposes legislation that would require jail time for public officials convicted of corruption and strip away their retirement benefits. Attorney General Zulima V. Farber told the Senate Judiciary Committee during a discussion on her plan to fight public corruption that judges should have leeway to decide prison terms and whether pensions should be forfeited.
"I oppose mandatory sentencing," Farber said.
Farber said her office would instead seek "harsh penalties" for officials convicted of corruption. She also raised constitutional questions about forcing convicted officials to forgo publicly funded retirement benefits.
"There are property rights to pensions," Farber said.
The committee called Farber to testify as political corruption remains a leading concern in New Jersey. Since 2002, about 200 public officials in New Jersey have been indicted by federal and state authorities. Farber questioned how the state could take away pension money earned during the time an official broke no laws. For instance, she wondered about an official who behaved legally for 30 years, then broke a law in the 31st year.
"I would let it to the court to decide what proper forfeiture would be," Farber said. Her stance seemingly didn't move senators who considered legislation Thursday that would impose mandatory sentences and pension forfeits on government officials convicted of corruption. The committee delayed voting on the bill. Senate Democrat spokesman Jim Manion said the panel wanted to tighten language to ensure prison time would be mandatory for all offenses involving official corruption. Sen. John Adler, the committee chairman, said he saw the bill as "a statement of public corruption policy" and discounted Farber's concern about when corruption might occur. "Wrongdoing is wrongdoing," Adler said.
Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, compared taking pensions away to monetary fines. "We take property all the time," Cardinale said.
During her testimony, Farber detailed her plans to reorganize her department's criminal justice division to assign 20 prosecutors to corruption issues. She said that constitutes a threefold increase in the number of such prosecutors.
Naturally. Who gets convicted of corruption? People just like the AG.
>>>>She also raised constitutional questions about forcing convicted officials to forgo publicly funded retirement benefits.
>>>"There are property rights to pensions," Farber said.
And where are the Halper's property rights???!!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665464/posts
Eminent domain foes to protest eviction, Halpers must quit farm by Monday (FRee Republic Mentioned)
That is total BS, but this is Jersey, right?
didn't she just fix a ticket (allegedly) for a friend of hers?
I think she received a phone call from her boyfriend who was pulled over in his van with an expired license and registration. She was said to have left her office and had her state paid driver take her 15 miles to the scene where coincidently the local mayor happened to pass by and stop. The police then voided the tickets and instead of impounding the van, followed the boyfriend as he drove the van home. Typical NJ bs.
With so many prosecutors doing show trials and witchhunts, I have to agree with the AG. It's too easy for a prosecutor to drum up a charge when he finds no real crime.
See "Scooter Libby" for reference.
Ah, another more equal pig rule.
John Corzine's government in action: don't penalize us, we're only stealing from everybody, and we're not using guns.
I think corrupt politicians should be shot. I guess their families can have the pensions.
I've dealt with it myself, where something fishy goes on with a public agency and a Deputy AG is implicated. You write to the AG for an investigation and you get a letter saying everything was proper - from the SAME Deputy AG who needed to be investigated. Total farce.
So split the difference. The primary target forfeits their pension and if there is a beneficiary assigned through proper paperwork - usually done upon employment, they get whatever they would have received normally as a survivor. Takes care of the property issue.
The Bush Administration has reversed the Clinton policy (Democrat policy) of fines, and now corruption leads to mandatory jail time.
The Democrats still prefer the "fines only" approach to punishing public corruption. Any Republican that endorses the Democrat approach is suspect.
Here's my take on a harsh penalty:
a.automatic firing b.If the employee qualified for, say, $800.00 per month retirement, then the fine is $800.00 per month. c.If the retiree also qualifies for health insurance, include an additional amount in the fine which would have covered it.
Anything less, isn't harsh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.