Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Jensen’s Unjust Sentence

This is an absolute travesty of justice.

Calling Scott Jensen’s actions “common thievery elevated to a higher plane,” a judge sentenced the former Assembly speaker this afternoon to 15 months in prison for his role in directing aides to do campaign work on state time.

Jensen, 45, was convicted in March of three felonies and one misdemeanor for ordering on-the-job campaigning by state workers before the 1998 and 2000 elections.

Jensen and a couple others were tried and convicted for activities that hundreds of legislators and previous Speakers did before Jensen ever set foot in Madison.  The original prosecution was selective. 

Furthermore, his sentence is overly harsh - much harsher than the other people caught up in the scandal.  Why?  The only thing that I can conclude is that it was harsher because Jensen was the only one who actually took his case to trial and exposed the hypocrisy and selectiveness of this politically-motivated prosecution and threatened embarrassing other politicians.  this should be a lesson to all Wisconsinites: you can expect to be treated more harshly if you insist on having your day in court.

(11) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1920 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Before Thompson/Jensen/Walker—clean as a whistle government, budgets under control, comity within the state legislature.

    After Thompson/Jensen/Walker—Illinois style corruption, out of control spending, rank partisanship.

    You’re right. Scooter didn’t deserve this sentence. He should have got more.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2006 at 1940 hrs


  2. I can’t believe what I am reading. This is one of the few times I will see right wing person complaining about harsh sentences.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2006 at 1943 hrs


  3. What a bunch of crap to try and put Walker in with the Capitol corruption cases. You are very transparent kr.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2006 at 2118 hrs


  4. For sure two out of three.

    Transparent? Lol! What in the world does transparent mean in this case?

    In Walker’s case I should have thrown in uninspired hack.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2006 at 2216 hrs


  5. It’s really pathetic to see conservatives who swore by the mantra of “personal responsibility”, resort to the “but everyone did it” defense.

    You’re reaching, Owen. You can’t claim the judge was a Democratic hack (the excuse used against the DA). The evidence is clear that Jensen was corrupt. So you’re left with “he was punished for going to trial”. Whether it’s a speeding ticket or a homicide, that’s exactly what happens when you reject a plea offer and go to trial.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2006 at 0519 hrs


  6. Jensen got what he deserved.  If others weren’t punished harshly enough for similar or worse crimes, then the answer isn’t to lessen the penalty for one to match the lenient sentence given the other.

    This whining from the usual lock-step conservative talking points crowd is just annoying hypocrisy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2006 at 0905 hrs


  7. I believe the arguement is not the harsh sentence as much as the way it was brought about. I listened to the judge claim that out of everything he heard Jensen’s crime was the worst. That is an outright lie. The reason being is that he heard things that the public did not. He heard and refused to allow in the trial evidence of others including the prosecution participating in the very thing that Jensen was on trial for. He heard but did not allow into evidence actual bragging about other situations where such activity was rampant. I have no issue with the sentence. What I have an issue with is that this prosecution was used to eliminate certain individuals while ignoring outright bragging from others to be brought to trial or even be entered into evidence. The judge wanted to set an example that this activity will not be tolerated and yet it seems by it’s action that it will not be tolerated unless you are liked by the prosecution.

    I think that Government needs to be cleaned up so I would suggest that if this trial was to mean anything to the thinking public, we now need to hammer all of the others who took part in this activity to be nailed to the wall as well. If this does not happen then it appears to be another situation of liberals using the courts to accomplish something that they could not do by presenting it to the people.

    Posted by fishaddict on May 17, 2006 at 0941 hrs


  8. I can’t claim I think any good is going to come from putting Jensen in jail for 15 months, it’s not like he’s a threat to use state employees to do campaign work for him again.  But these cries of unfairness seem to lack the recognition of a fundamental point.  Jensen got 4 convictions, 3 felony and 1 misdemeanor.  Everyone else who entered into a plea agreement got 1 conviction at the most (for either felonies or misdemeanors).  Jensen had to serve more time than Chvala, who got nine months work release.  Once you go over a year, you have to enter into the corrections program and go to prison, that’s in state law.  I thought Jensen was going to end up with closer to 2 years to be honest.  Given the precedent that was set I don’t think he could’ve expected better after his conviction.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2006 at 0959 hrs


  9. Give it Up Owen!!!!

    Anyone with a penny’s worth of legal knowledge knows if you take a case to court you aren’t going to get a lighter sentence!!

    Further proof that a blog and being on Syke’s show doesn’t mean you really know much!!!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2006 at 1937 hrs


  10. Asking for a trial when you are guilty is idiotic.  It’s even more idiotic when your defense is, “but other people were doing it!”  Well if that’s going to become the new legal standard, how can you prosecute any criminal?

    It’s very sad when you are so partisan that you feel the need to defend a criminal.  Idealogically it’s meaningless, I’d be shocked if his district went Dem once in the next 50 years.  The GOP is better off getting this criminal out of their ranks, and you should be happy about it.  Criminals don’t make good candidates…

    Posted by Forward Our Motto on May 18, 2006 at 0158 hrs


  11. Does anyone know if Mike Huebsch can get his mileage reimbursed for the trips to prison so he can get his marching orders?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 18, 2006 at 1950 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.