I think you made a mistake in your title, Teox. He didn't go free - he was found guilty and sentenced:

Arbeeny was sentenced to five years’ probation and 300 hours of community service with the proviso that hours spent warning police recruits about repeating his crimes will count double.

He's also lost his job, all chance of future employment, and his pension, so whilst he still arguably deserved jail time, I don't think anyone could argue that he got off 'free'. It's probably also worth noting that he could have only received a maximum of 4 years jail time for flaking, which he obviously wouldn't have received as given the possible extent of flaking, this instance wasn't as extreme as it could have been. So it probably would have been a 1 year jail sentence (max), out on parole probably after 6 months (if not sooner). Instead, he's now limited in his behavior (probably can't drink, leave the state, etc), is forced to fulfill community service quotas, and (importantly) will give lectures to new recruits warning them of the dangers of being a crooked cop, serving as an example of how not to carry out the law.

So one could easily argue that not only was his punishment more severe than jail time (more freedom in not being cramped in a jail cell, but highly restricted freedom over a longer period of time), but it also includes an aspect of societal importance - the education of new recruits, which serves as a worthwhile rehabilitory sentence. This is of course keeping in mind that the feelings of the victims and the "punishment" of the criminal should not be what justice is about.

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

Teox wrote:...and planted drugs on guileless victims to meet arrest quotas...

One damned-good reason to get rid of the arrest quotas I'd say.

Agreed. I'm sure there are better ways of measuring job performance.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think you made a mistake in your title, Teox. He didn't go free - he was found guilty and sentenced:

Arbeeny was sentenced to five years’ probation and 300 hours of community service with the proviso that hours spent warning police recruits about repeating his crimes will count double.

He's also lost his job, all chance of future employment, and his pension, so whilst he still arguably deserved jail time, I don't think anyone could argue that he got off 'free'.

Generally when we say someone "went free" after court, everyone understands it means they didn't go to jail.

So one could easily argue that not only was his punishment more severe than jail time (more freedom in not being cramped in a jail cell, but highly restricted freedom over a longer period of time), but it also includes an aspect of societal importance - the education of new recruits, which serves as a worthwhile rehabilitory sentence. This is of course keeping in mind that the feelings of the victims and the "punishment" of the criminal should not be what justice is about.

First, since jail carries all the downsides you mentioned plus lack of freedom, calling his prohibition less severe is wrong.

Second, it's a joke. If anything the message is, "Don't get caught, but if you do, the penalty isn't nearly as severe as the penalty for the people you're planting drugs on."

Don't let facts get in the way of a perfecly good OP, eh, Teox?

quixotecoyote wrote:Generally when we say someone "went free" after court, everyone understands it means they didn't go to jail.

I disagree. The phrase "to walk free" or "get off free" means to go unpunished, at least that's how it's popularly understood. In the US, the phrase is sometimes even shortened to "walk" (as in, "The killer walked") which literally means "to be acquitted", and the phrase "get off free" is a shortened form of "get off scot free" which means to go without punishment. If there's some other meaning that I'm not aware of then that's fine, but I personally don't think it's accurate to describe someone as getting off "free" when they are found guilty and given a fairly hefty sentence.

quixotecoyote wrote:

So one could easily argue that not only was his punishment more severe than jail time (more freedom in not being cramped in a jail cell, but highly restricted freedom over a longer period of time), but it also includes an aspect of societal importance - the education of new recruits, which serves as a worthwhile rehabilitory sentence. This is of course keeping in mind that the feelings of the victims and the "punishment" of the criminal should not be what justice is about.

First, since jail carries all the downsides you mentioned plus lack of freedom, calling his prohibition less severe is wrong.

Except that the jail sentence would have been far shorter than the sentence he did receive, meaning that whilst he has a few more freedoms not being in jail, he has limited freedom for longer. That's why I suggested that an argument could be made that it was a more severe punishment; one is shitty for a short amount of time, one is a little less shitty for a longer amount of time. It's debatable as to which is more severe.

quixotecoyote wrote:Second, it's a joke. If anything the message is, "Don't get caught, but if you do, the penalty isn't nearly as severe as the penalty for the people you're planting drugs on."

I don't think it says that at all. I think it says that justice is not a ridiculous form of ancient retribution that believes in an eye for an eye, and instead it is more intelligent and rational than that. It seems to me that the option the judge chose (forcing the officer to give lectures on the dangers of being a crooked cop) will do more good for society, and more good for the officer, than sticking him in jail for 6 months would.