About a week ago, the news of Donald J. Trump’s sentencing hit. The judge in the case, Juan Merchan, emphasized that his sentencing did not remove Trump’s guilt or the seriousness of his crimes. But based on new legal stipulations around presidential immunity, Merchan felt he had no choice but to issue an unconditional discharge. That left Trump with no punishment — not even a fine.
Putting politics completely aside, what example does this send to leaders who do inappropriate things? What does it do to those who hope in justice, only to watch the guilty person — left to act as they please — suffer no consequences?
The functions of penalty
The first question any plaintiff considering bringing someone to court asks is, “Will I be believed?” Particularly in cases of sexual assault, this is a stressful inquiry. It forces the plaintiff to internally debate the strength of their story and compare their reputation against the defendant’s. It is a question both of popularity and fact-oriented credibility.
But a second question is, “What will be done about what has happened?” To have some sort of consequence when a defendant is guilty isn’t just a demonstration that the judge and/or jury believes the plaintiff. It is also a demonstration of how much the judge/jury cares and the degree to which they believe the defendant has violated larger cultural morals with deliberate intent. A penalty is supposed to serve as negative reinforcement that confirms for the plaintiff that they did something inappropriate. It’s supposed to encourage them to learn and avoid the same kind of action in the future.
The consequences of no punishment
In this case — which of course is not an isolated incident of broken justice, but which is unique for its high-profile nature — there is no penalty. Legally, Merchan felt there was nothing beyond an unconditional discharge he could do. The message to Trump — and to anyone else who violates the law — is that nothing has to change. Instead of reinforcing an appropriate sense of guilt that could lead to repentance, the verdict gives permission for Trump to continue life as usual and reinforces the internal belief that he didn’t do anything wrong.
This individual warping of guilt perception and lost opportunity to repent is bad enough. But it also sends the message to everyone watching that the morals around the case — e.g., don’t mess around with porn stars, fudge your financial records, and weave a web of lies — don’t have value anymore. As the moral lines disintegrate and form a new level of cultural tolerance, those in positions of power have a powerful precedent that they can escape punishment and won’t have to alter their behavior. That sets the stage for them to abuse the power they have and create more victims. As victims see that nothing happens when they bring their abusers to court, they learn there is no point in speaking up. There is almost nothing at all to stop the cycle of violation and permission that advances the moral decay of the people.
Punishment isn’t easy to accept, but it’s necessary
No leader is perfect. There is a time, too, for mercy and pardon, as Jesus exemplifies. But part of the responsibility of a leader is to be willing to bear the consequences of their choices, not just for themselves, but for the greater good of those they lead. To accept a punishment and admit guilt is neither comfortable nor easy, as the repentant adulterer and murder, King David, likely would tell us. But it is necessary for those who have been wronged not to despair, and for the larger moral fabric of the group to hold. Like King David, we therefore must react to our recognition of wrongdoing with a plea for God to help and show us the way to do better.
Hope and moral strength doesn’t just die in darkness, where no one sees what has happened. Hope and moral strength also die when people see what has happened and cannot or choose not to act.
In the words often attributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
When given the choice between self-preservation and accepting a penalty, a guilty leader must always choose the penalty. To do so is a measure by which people might assess the leader’s long-term integrity despite the mistake. Laws or organizational policies that allow a guilty leader to put themselves ahead of others and the existing good value systems are bad laws and policies and shouldn’t be entertained.