Convicted defense lawyer Lynne Stewart was resentenced today to 10 years in prison, up from the 28 month sentence that the government had successfully appealed. I noticed this observation from the New York Times:
But what seemed to weigh heavily on the judge’s decision were statements Ms. Stewart made to the press after her first sentencing that she could do 28 months “standing on my head” and that she would do it all again. Those comments, the judge said, indicated “a lack of remorse” and that “the original sentence was not sufficient.”
Before Judge Koeltl ruled, Ms. Stewart tried to backtrack from those statements. She said that prison was worse than she could ever have imagined. “Over the last eight months, prison has diminished me,” she said. “Daily, I confront the prospect of death.”
That's a big "oops," boasting outside of court about a lenient sentence.
Anyway, Lynne Stewart's case offers a great window into what one thinks should be the purpose(s) of criminal sentencing. The crime of conviction was that she provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization by exploiting her role as an attorney to make her client, the Blind Sheikh (convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing), "available" to his followers. She did so by meeting with her client and allowing her translator to speak directly with the Blind Sheikh and to carry out a message to be delivered to his followers via public statement, when the terms of his sentence forbade such outside communication.
Stewart is 70 years old, suffers from cancer, and has been disbarred as a result of her conviction. From the standpoint of incapacitation, she will not be able to commit this crime again, for she has lost the ability to practice law and hence cannot abuse and exploit her position as a lawyer. Therefore, if the purpose of punishment is to protect society from further crimes by her, a prison sentence -- certainly a long sentence of 10 years -- is unnecessary.
Now if the purpose of punishment is deterrence, a prison sentence may be warranted, since not all lawyers are 70 years old, and someone much younger but equally misguided might think he/she could serve 28 months and still have a long life, even if disbarred. On the other hand, lawyers are generally cautious and risk-averse, and Stewart's case stood out precisely for being unusual in that a lawyer was involved. So for deterrence purposes, disbarment and conviction are probably sufficient.
We don't try to rehabilitate prisoners, so that leaves retribution. This is really the only way to understood the 10 year sentence -- which, given her medical illness, likely constitutes a life sentence. The prison sentence expresses outrage at Stewart's conduct. It's one thing to represent suspected terrorists, as many lawyers have done; it's something else to exploit and abuse one's role as a lawyer to assist the client in doing things that the client is not allowed to do. Consider the following conversation described in the appeals court decision, which was captured by electronic monitoring:
From the beginning of the visit, Stewart was aware of the prison guards' presence. For example, she asked Yousry, “Do they usually sit like this and watch us?”
And during this meeting, Stewart and Yousry took overt steps to ensure that the nature of their communication with Abdel Rahman would be concealed from the prison guards. As she suggested to Yousry, they “should give them [i.e., the guards] something to watch.” When the guards were standing close to the window of the conference room in which Abdel Rahman, Stewart, and Yousry, were meeting Yousry told Stewart to “look at me and talk a little bit because they are watching us closely.” While Yousry read the message to Abdel Rahman, Stewart uttered a meaningless series of phrases to Yousry so that it would appear to an observer as though she was taking part in a three-way conversation: “I am talking to you about ... him going to have a, uh, chocolate eh ... heart attack here.... Why don't you stop a minute now. And (UI) say to him that, you know, ‘You understood what we are saying, (UI).’ ” As Stewart spoke, Yousry said to Abdel Rahman, “I don't know, Sir, they are standing very close by the glass.... Lynne says, (UI) when they look, you look at me a little, talk, then look at the Sheikh.”
Stewart continued to talk while Yousry read aloud Taha's statement in Sattar's letter. Yousry explained to Abdel Rahman that “Lynne just says anything, [laughing] (UI) Sir.” . Stewart remarked, “I can get an academy award for it.”Stewart and Yousry then had this exchange:YOUSRY: ... Lynne, I think you should talk to him because they are looking at me. STEWART: (UI) there (UI), they, uh, (UI) ... [she taps Yousry's pad with her pen] uhm, if he finds out what this is, then we're ... [Laughs.]
These bracketed comments, which are in the original transcripts of the audiovisual recordings that were introduced as exhibits, are descriptions of relevant visual information. YOUSRY: [Laughs] In trouble.
STEWART: [Laughing] Yeah, that's right.
Personally, I think Stewart's conduct was indefensible, but I also find the 10 year sentence to be unjustifiably harsh. She's a "cause" lawyer who clearly lost perspective and deserves to be punished, but not with what amounts to a life sentence.
