Unfair Legal Privileges for Authority Figures

Powerful political figures are most known for the way that they address legal issues and protect society. However, these authority figures are beginning to fill the local and national news channels with their infamous lawbreaking strategies, along with the minimum sentences they receive for the crimes that they commit. Political figures in the U.S. are responsible for enforcing laws to protect society yet do not always abide by the rules and laws that they try to implement. In turn they are able to escape maximum consequences and leave the citizens of U.S. to ask one question. Is it fair for powerful individuals to be exempt from the same consequences enforced on average citizens? When someone breaks the law, there are guidelines that are to be followed in order to penalized the perpetrator. In the sense that this particular individual is a well-known or respected public official, the consequences take on a slight alteration. It is possible for powerful authority figures to avoid the highest level of criminal penalty. This is an advantage that is not given to everyone else in our society. To define consequences, the meaning that is being referred to is the unbiased and deserved penalty for a specific crime committed, regardless of the position or status held by the individual. Within the past year, the local and national news has been filled with stories featuring powerful public officials linked to scandal or illegal activity. A particular incident that addresses this issue is the recent story about a 92-year-old woman named Kathryn Johnson. According to an article from www.cnn.com/crime called “Ex- Atlanta officers get prison time for cover-up in deadly raid,” while in her home, Atlanta police force entry in search of drugs, all while opening fire and ultimately killing the elderly women. Afterward, the officers attempt to disguise their mistake by placing drugs in Mrs. Johnson’s home.

For this gruesome crime the officers involved were sentenced to only five to ten years in prison. This was obviously the minimum penalty for their crime. Another example explained by William Rahbaum of the New York Times involves a young man in a similar situation. He was shot fifty times and killed by police officers in New York, regardless of the fact that he was unarmed. Both of these unfortunate incidents were brought forth by powerful figures, and each, along with many others were not sentenced to the maximum penalty for their actions. Although these events occur from authority figures and is clearly indecent, it is understandable for these figures to receive second chances. Unlike most citizens, these powerful individuals are sworn in and take vows to protect others. This is a vow that many average individuals do not take and therefore are not required to uphold such a promise. However, in theory we are all human and each of us are capable of making the same mistakes, regardless of our positions. With this in mind, it should be a fair requirement for all persons to abide by the same rules and receive the same sentences for particular crimes.

Works Cited
Araminta Wordsworth. Political rehab; Three U.S. politicians plagued by scandals and gaffes seek fresh start.” National Post. (f/k/a The Financial Post)(Canada) 13 Nov. 2008 pg.A3 Canwest News Service. “ Obama calls on governor to resign; Scandal over Senate seat widens.” The Gazette (Montreal) 11 Dec. 2008 pg A24 Ex-Atlanta officers get prison time for cover-up in deadly raid. Updated 24 Feb. 2009 retrieved 21 March 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/atlanta.police/ Lambro, Donald. “Democrats’ scandals play into GOP hands.” Washington Times 14 Dec. 2008, pg 1, Analysis; A01 Rashbaum,K. William “Undercover police kill an unarmed man in a scuffle.”New York Times 17 March 2000. Retrieved 21 March 2009