Eliot Spitzer not resigning--yet

He was supposed to submit his resignation letter to the state senate at 7:00, but now his attorneys are demurring--Fox News says that they don't want to give up "their biggest bargaining chip". Divine: Sir Spitzer, Protector of the Individual Investor, thinks the governor's office is a bargaining chip. And federal prosecutors are supposed to make a plea bargain to let him off in exchange for his resignation. This does not seem like a good negotiating tactic with an office that has the power to march you out of that office in cuffs.

Update The more I think about this, the more horrifying it is. If he'd just resigned, I would have said they should let him go with community service and his everlasting humiliation--but now I kind of think they should frog-march him out with his hands cuffed behind his back and throw him in the cooler for whatever the maximum penalty is.

Comments

Why do you want him imprisoned--for the "maximum penalty," no less--for a victimless act he may have committed (of which you have no direct knowledge)that you, as a libertarian, don't even think should be illegal in the first place? You need to be more consistent.

Posted by Mortimer Madler | March 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Mortimer, he committed a couple of crimes. You may not like the criminal law, but until it is changed one must accept the penalties for violating it. Or, in this case, revel in them!

And Megan, time to switch over to decaf now.

Posted by JohnF | March 10, 2008 9:17 PM

Weird. I'd think offering the federal prosecutor the chance to get self-righteous about throwing the book at you isn't a very wise strategy.

Posted by toxic | March 10, 2008 9:19 PM

Personally, I think if a politician purchases services from a prostitute it should be of concern only to his wife, the voters, and the comedians - not the law.
But given that Vitter got off with a few mealy-mouth platitudes, I don't see why Spitzer should suffer any harsher penalty.

Posted by peter | March 10, 2008 9:43 PM

Elliot Spitzer should suffer the same penalty as anyone who is not Elliot Spitzer would suffer.

And there should be plenty of video for our entertainment. Especially if there's frog-marching involved.

Posted by Mike | March 10, 2008 10:31 PM

I think Spitzer should be treated more harshly than the average Joe. My view is that, the higher the office, the greater the penalty should be for committing a crime--at least where the law allows different penalties for the crime. Note: I do believe that the determination of guilt or innocence should be the same for Spitzer as anyone else. But not the penalty, if he is guilty.

Posted by JohnF | March 10, 2008 11:21 PM

Spitzer should suffer the same penalties as anyone he himself prosecuted for prostitution.

Even more important than any particular details of the law is the principle that it should apply to those who make it and enforce it the same way it does to the rest of us proles.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | March 11, 2008 7:58 AM

I am enjoying this with entirely unaccustomed schadenfreude .

Well, not entirely unaccustomed. But I am waiting to see whether there's a proscutor out there who's slavering at the chance to give him the full Spitzer.

Posted by Nanonymous | March 11, 2008 9:03 AM

Spitzer's Perp Walk - Priceless. Or as one of his former targets might say, it's a good thing!

Posted by Andrew | March 11, 2008 10:50 AM

"I think Spitzer should be treated more harshly than the average Joe. My view is that, the higher the office, the greater the penalty should be for committing a crime--"

I disagree, unless there is evidence that he abused the power of his office in some way. I believe that judges are free to use other factors in sentencing decisions, even if those actions are not proven as crimes in court.

For instance, if prosecuters believe Spitzer pursued other prostitution rings to eliminate competition for the ring he patronized, but can't prove it, they should throw the book at him for the charges that they can prove.

Posted by Njorl | March 11, 2008 12:25 PM

Spitzer should suffer the same penalties as anyone he himself prosecuted for prostitution.

Hmmm. Should Spitzer suffer the same penalty those other perps actually got, or the penalties Spitzer sought for them? And should Spitzer be subject to the same tactical maneuvers and negotiation strategies he has employed as a prosecutor?

Posted by PJ | March 11, 2008 1:58 PM

Spitzer had to read the essay on prostitution "A She-Savior" by the well-known Russian author Mikhail Armalinsky. It was published in Moscow edition of his Selected Works http://www.mipco.com/english/introVozn.html
Here is the link: http://www.mipco.com/english/SheSavior.html

The main idea of the essay "A She-Savior" is that the legalization of prostitution must be based on a return of its divine, sacred character, so that prostitution will be considered the most honorable profession, the one closest to God, the holiest.

Posted by David Bayevsky | March 18, 2008 10:47 PM