Snipes Gets the Max

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Our Crime in the News coverage would be incomplete without mention of Wesley Snipes, who was sentenced today.

Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday for failing to file tax returns, the maximum penalty — and a victory for prosecutors who sought to make an example of the action star.

We should cringe when prosecutors or judges crow about "making an example" out of a defendant. Does fame justify suspension of our belief in equal protection of the law?

Suggested reading if you want to know more about the Snipes prosecution: (more...)

In a post headlined Why the government is eager to imprison Wesley Snipes, Prof. Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy links to a Forbes.com story explaining "why the government sees the Snipes case as one of the most important tax evasion cases in recent memory." The post includes links to earlier SL&P coverage. You can find Doug's sentencing prediction here (nobody's crystal ball is perfect) and his links to additional analysis of the Snipes sentencing here.

< Clyburn's Boneheaded Attempt To Help Obama | Why Indiana Is The Test >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Snipes Gets the Max | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:08 PM EST

Very interesting post by Prof. Berman.

I have a friend who is a lawyer for the IRS, and he tells me at least half his cases involve these tax-protestor types and their kooky theories. It must be a strange job, refuting the same discredited argument time and time again.

: Very interesting. (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:25:48 AM EST

Some people who sued the state and federal governments in CA because they were suspected tax protestors, ended up being prosecuted for not paying taxes. Except for the guru, these people got less than a year each in custody.

: Discredited? (none / 0) (#36)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:19:22 AM EST

Uh oh. . .
(Just kidding Judge Mukasey!)

yes, it is. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST

nothing new under the sun there, this same "theory", and multiple others have been tossed since the 16th amendment was first ratified. perhaps a second legal opinion might have been in order.

while i don't care for the crowing part, if mr. snipes had just received a slap on the wrist, the publicity would have been tremendously damaging. it would have encouraged others to follow in his footsteps, figuring the risk was worth it.

we have more than enough nutjobs running around loose already, no sense needlessly inciting them.

sigh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST

while major corporate entities and the ultra--ultra rich negotiate what is and isn't a shelter, what is and isn't legal, we imprison a wealthy individual for three years as an example.

Didn't willie nelson owe the same amount?

: IIRC, Willie Nelson owed 10 mil. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST

what did Snipes in was his long drawn out litigation, using these tax evaders/cheaters to guide him.
They got prosecuted and some crow bar hotel time.
BTD, what happened to them?

Scooter Libby outed a spy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:49 PM EST

then lied about it, but he got less time (30 months) and that was commuted thanks to G-dub.

: under normal circumstance and a lawful admin. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:50:39 PM EST

this would have been an act of treason, and death would be the remedy

really hate that example BS (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:59:28 PM EST

I wish there were some way to fight a sentence just on the basis of the judge saying it's meant as an example. I just seems wrong down to the core. I don't know if it's constitutional, but it just seems immoral somehow.

Hmm, lesson? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:18:04 AM EST

Don't be a celeb and fv¢k with the IRS.

The judge's statement show he's clueless (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by boredmpa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:18:11 AM EST

Talk about elitism, here's the judge's statement:

"One of the main purposes which drives selective prosecution in tax cases is deterrence," the judge said, while denying it had anything to do with his sentence. "In some instances, that means those of celebrity stand greater risk of prosecution. But there's nothing unusual about it, nor is there anything unlawful about it. It's the way the system works."

Let me parse this: Snipes is going to jail because he was naive and believed he was right vs the government--so he has to represent naive people so they don't make the same mistake. He can repay his taxes + fines, so the only victims are the other naive people that might follow his lead (his fines may cover govt prosecution costs).

The judge is an idiot if he doesn't realize that six months and an education campaign has a far, far, far, far better result. Naive people are not going to be deterred by a footnote (wesley snipes is in jail) but are going to be reached by a series of television ads over time. Especially if Snipes is regularly in movies. In this case, the Judge causes severe economic damage to one man (multiples of what he owed), takes him off the market, and hides him in a prison and somehow thinks that's going to deter naive folk.

oh and the elitism aspect (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by boredmpa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:24:45 AM EST

Is that he thinks so poorly of people that they can only be dealt with through prison term deterrence and strong/draconian punishment.

I realize it's partly his job that leads him to view everything as a crime issue (and not as a govt failure/education/regulation issue), but his statement is ridiculous. Not to mention he's regulating from the bench via his support of a "cheap" deterrence program.

Gov't failure: no clear policy statement/announcements.
Regulation failure: weak laws or enforcement against hucksters.
Education failure: no marketing combat of the hucksters selling these ideas. Ya know, around tax time would be ideal.


I doubt very much Snipes was (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:27:17 AM EST

"naive" about failing to pay his federal taxes.


I am not sure what the right word is (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:42:18 AM EST

Crazy comes to mind.

I once knew a paralegal in a law firm who told me the 16th amendment had not been properly ratified theory. I asked him if he was paying his taxes. He said yes. I said good, because people who fall for that crazy theory get into serious trouble.

I went out (God knows why) and spent some time finding out about the theory and the arguments against it. I sent it to him.

He refused to believe it. He wanted to believe the taxes were illegal. As far as I know, he was to scared not to pay his taxes.

The funny thing is, he was not a highly paid paralegal (and there are some, but not in that firm), nor did he have a lot of income from outside sources that he needed to shelter as far as I could observe (car, clothes, divorce, remarriage children). He either liked conspiracy theories or really (more than most) hated taxes or both.

: The fellow [I think his name is Tom (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST

Miller] who preaches this stuff must be quite charasmatic.

they're all meant as examples. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cpinva on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:04 AM EST

really hate that example BS

this one just happened to garner bigger headlines than your run-of-the-mill junkie. that is one of the purposes of sentencing someone after all, always has been.

perhaps what you're having difficulty wrapping your mind around is the concept of violating tax laws resulting in a prison sentence, as opposed to just a fine, interest and the taxes owed?

I have never understood (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by flyerhawk on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:47:57 AM EST

How a system that claims to be impartial could punish celebrities to make an example of them.

Snipes was stupid. He allowed his inner greed to take over his rational self. But I don't believe that he should go to jail over it ESPECIALLY if he is going to jail simply to be made an example.

If that is really what happens he should appeal to the Supreme Court on 14th Amendment grounds.

I am sadden by this (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by facta non verba on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:39:55 AM EST

Jeralyn is right. Setting examples is not the way to uphold equal treatment before the law. Will he appeal?

Thank you. I do cringe (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by dem08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:29 AM EST

I will be reading Talk Left long after the election of 2008 is in the books.

We need Justice in America, not "examples".

um, no, not really. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by cpinva on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:29:34 AM EST

he got the maximum sentence because he was advocating that others also refrain from financing this runaway government of ours, and that was something the powers that be could not let slide.

he got the maximum sentence because he let unfettered greed and stupidity get in the way of common sense. sticking it to the man had nothing to do with it, from what i've read of the case, and i've been reading about it since it first came to light.

mr. snipes' primary reason for entering into this activity was simple: he didn't want to pay taxes, period.

with respect to his race having anything to do with his sentence, my guess is no, it was his celebrity, and his refusal to enter into a plea bargain with the gov't. as jeralyn can tell you, that's a risk you run when you insist on taking a case to trial.

now, you can legitimately argue whether or not putting someone in jail for a "white collar" crime makes any sense, or is a good use of scarce allocable resources, but that's another issue entirely.

martha stewart & wesley snipes (none / 0) (#30)
by bluesmoke on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST

each would have never spent a day in jail if they had took a deal and paid the fine

either they were incredibly stupid or had incredibly stupid lawyers

or both


: But what kind of message does that send? (none / 0) (#31)
by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST

If you have the audacity to have your day in court, we're going to get you the max!

It didn't help matters (none / 0) (#35)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:17:35 AM EST

that he gave a huge interview on the case, and painted the IRS and the government as rabid dogs persecuting him because of the color of his skin.

But, seriously: Snipes let these guys persuade him that the rest of the country is crazy and that there was some law out there that said you don't really have to pay taxes? He didn't double-check this with someone? The guy heard what he wanted to hear and acted accordingly.

I can't speak to the sentence, or the "example," but this is just patently stupid.


I haven't followed the case... (none / 0) (#15)
by reynwrap582 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:32 AM EST

And I don't want to interject race into this, but I can't help but notice that "examples" more often seem to be a person of color, or a woman (Martha Stewart).

Yeah, he did a crime, he deserves a punishment, but the concept of "examples" is a practice of disparate sentencing. Let's not forget that sentencing disparities have been the catalyst for numerous sentencing reforms...but we're still coming back to the same old thing? I'm not one to rail against discretion in the criminal justice system, but things like this make it a much more complicated issue than it ought to be.

If you wish to make examples of people, then every person convicted of a crime needs to be equally made an example. Either that or you can apply a version of the rule for checkpoints, where you can only make of an example of every n'th person. Sorry buddy, if your case number is divisible by 3, you're doin' 20 to life!

Black and White (none / 0) (#16)
by bernarda on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:55:45 AM EST

What are the equivalent sentences for white offenders in the same situation? I am willing to bet that if Snipes were white he would have gotten a slap on the hand.

Tough break Wesley.... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:19:01 AM EST

I was rooting for ya man.

If my taxes were paid instead of taken, I'd be a kooky tax protester too. I've got serious moral qualms about funding the CIA, DEA, FBI, ATF, ICE, etc.

Well...Snipes fits the other demographic (none / 0) (#19)
by Virginian on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:04 AM EST

that usually gets the "book" thrown at them...

He's black...

The sentencing is not surprising, imagine if this had been Sylvester Stallone, or some other white action star...I doubt the outcome would have been the same.

: It was reported by a Hollywood mag (none / 0) (#39)
by ding7777 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST

that he had a repayment schedule worked out (like Willie Nelson) to avoid prosecution.
If true, why did he go to trial?
btw, Snipes sent the IRS "play money" and threatened to have the IRS agent lose his job

I know I shouldn't bring up race (none / 0) (#21)
by lilybart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:41:57 AM EST

but if Snipes were a white business man, would he have gotten 3 years?

People can't just go around refusing to file and pay their taxes, but maybe the penalty should be a GINORMOUS MONETARY penalty. Like 100 Xs the money you didn't pay voluntarily instead of jail.

We jail too many people.

: doesnt fit (none / 0) (#34)
by AlSmith on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:10:23 AM EST

The other guys:
Snipes' co-defendants, Douglas P. Rosile and Eddie Ray Kahn, were convicted on both felony counts on which the actor was acquittal. Kahn, who refused to defend himself in court, was sentenced to the maximum 10 years, while Rosile received 4 1/2 years.
I guess I am assuming that Kahn is white.
Or you could look at Willie Nelson or Marc Rich both of whom also werent overlooked by IRS because of their skin color.
I think the mistake that newly people make is that they assume the grumbling that the "rich people dont pay taxes" is true. They pay a disgusting amount of taxes. If I was Clinton and I had to write a check for $33M I think I'd be queezy for a week.

Horrifying n/t (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51:38 AM EST

"An example" is right... (none / 0) (#23)
by TripMaster Monkey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:54:32 AM EST

Snipes didn't get the maximum sentence for his own evasion of taxes...he got the maximum sentence because he was advocating that others also refrain from financing this runaway government of ours, and that was something the powers that be could not let slide.

: plea bargains (none / 0) (#38)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST

All races and social classes in America use plea bargains all the time. Snipes was either grandiose or had a bad lawyer.

I love To Wong Foo (none / 0) (#24)
by sister of ye on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:59:08 AM EST

I even like Patrick Swayze in it. His character is a dead ringer for Karen Hughes.

I agree, if the offender was a rightwing white guy like Mel Gibson, I doubt he'd be sentenced to three years behind bars. Though I'd give him at least that much for Passion of the Christ.

OT All NYPD cops aquitted in AA wedding shooting (none / 0) (#29)
by Saul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST

Could be serious AA reaction through out the week.

: For real?... (none / 0) (#32)
by kdog on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:03:02 AM EST

Can't find confirmation online.
If true, I ain't surpised.

You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights
-The Clash, "Know Your Rights"
Criminal Justice...the national f*cking joke.

What a horse's @ss. (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST

Could Snipes have possibly been any dumber?

Although 3 years does seem like a lot of time for his crime, and I assume he has by now paid all the monies he owed, since he used his celebrity and race, apparently, to try to evade the consequences of his numerous, ongoing and coldly calculated illegal activities, I'm not surprised that that same celebrity has come back to bite him in the @ss, if indeed him getting the maximum sentence is actually unfair.

If he had gotten a sentence that was in excess of the maximum sentence, that would be unquestionably unfair and I would feel much more empathy for him.

The vastness of his stupidity is astounding.