Another former federal prosecutor suggests Libby’s within-guideline sentence is unreasonable
As discussed here, former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani has already suggested that Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s within-guideline sentence is substantively unreasonable. Now I see from this Washington Post op-ed that former federal prosecutor William Otis, who advocates clemency for Libby, views Libby’s within-guideline sentence as “excessive” and “unusually harsh” and “unnecessary.” Notably, Otis does not mention in his op-ed that Libby received a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guideline range.
Thankfully, Eric Muller, in this must-read post, effectively highlights the remarkable hypocrisy of these sentencing criticisms coming from Otis, who was not long ago a spokesman for the Justice Department decrying judicial decisions to sentence below the guidelines. Here is one of the points Otis made in testimony to Congress complaining about sentences below the guidelines: “Even more than others, persons convicted of criminal behavior need — for their own good and ours — to turn away from the culture of grievance-building and excuse-making and join the culture of personal responsibility.”
In addition, given his experience with guideline sentencing realities, Otis should know better than to call Libby’s sentence “unusually harsh.” As I have highlighted in posts here and here and here, decorated veteran Victor Rita received a within-guideline 33-month sentence for far less serious instances of perjury and obstruction. And yet, I do not believe that Otis has spoken out in support of Rita’s appeal of his sentence to the Supreme Court.
I hope that the Justices considering Rita’s appeal are taking note of how these “tough on crime” former federal prosecutors now are so ready to spotlight that the guidelines can sometimes produce unreasonably harsh sentence ranges.
Some recent related posts: