LAW, Page 62The Wrath of "Maximum Bob"Jim Bakker's stiff punishment raises questions over sentencingBy Alain L. Sanders/Reported by Jerome Cramer/Washington andTom Curry/New York
At times the proceedings looked more like a tragicomedy than
a federal criminal trial. First a Government witness fainted on the
stand, then the defendant suffered a hallucinatory breakdown and
was carted off for psychiatric tests. Even nature played an
impromptu walk-on part as Hurricane Hugo temporarily suspended the
federal trial in Charlotte, N.C.
Last week, however, the soap-opera proceedings turned deadly
serious for Jim Bakker. Convicted 19 days earlier of fraudulently
raising $158 million in contributions from his adoring flock, the
smooth-talking, scandal-plagued televangelist drew a stunning
45-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine.
"I'm deeply sorry for the people who have been hurt," Bakker
contritely told U.S. District Judge Robert Potter just before the
sentencing. "I have sinned. I have made mistakes. But never in my
life did I intend to defraud anyone." That last-ditch bid for
leniency made little impression on the judge, known as "Maximum
Bob" because of his penchant for stiff sentences. "Those of us who
do have a religion are sick of being saps for money-grubbing
preachers and priests," Potter angrily told the defendant. Bakker,
49, was quickly bound in handcuffs and leg-irons and driven to a
federal facility in Talladega, Ala., to begin serving his time. He
is to be transferred to a medium-security medical center in
Minnesota and as signed to its work crew. Unless the conviction or
sentence is reversed on appeal, he will stay behind bars for at
least ten years before becoming eligible for parole.
In a country where convicted murderers are sentenced to an
average of 20 years, Bakker's punishment seemed excessive and
arbitrary to many people. "Before some judges, Bakker might have
gotten off with little more than probation," said a federal judge,
who declined to be identified.
The stiff prison term once again drew attention to the glaring
inequalities that often characterize sentencing decisions in the
U.S. Despite efforts at reform, much of the nation's criminal
sentencing system is still based on an idiosyncratic set of
decisions made by crime-busting legislatures and individual trial
judges. New York State law, for example, sets extremely broad
parameters for various crimes -- one to 25 years for a bank
robbery, 1 1/2 to 15 years for first-degree assault -- but leaves
it to the discretion of each judge to fix the actual sentence. The
theory behind this system is that punishment should be tailored to
such factors as the circumstances of a crime and the culpability
of the individual defendant.
The problem, of course, is that a case-by-case approach can
easily create inconsistencies. For one thing, legislatures are not
always careful to calibrate each offense according to its severity;
this can lead to situations in which an armed assault can draw the
same penalty, say 15 years, as a simple robbery. In recent years,
moreover, disparities in the punishments prescribed for various
crimes have been exaggerated by legislators' tendency to enact
mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for drug crimes.
Many jurists oppose this policy as an encroachment on their
prerogatives. Like the American Bar Association, Federal District
Judge Marvin Aspen complains that "mandatory sentencing gets rid
of judicial decision making." Tailoring a punishment to the
criminal, he says, means that sentences should be appropriately
different for each defendant.
Critics of sentence tailoring claim that it results in gross
inequalities. They point out that the main beneficiaries of
judicial discretion are frequently white-collar criminals, who draw
lighter jail terms or alter native sentences that keep them out of
prison altogether. On the other hand, high-profile defendants
sometimes bear the brunt of judicial wrath in order to be made a
societal example -- something that Bakker's supporters claim has
happened in his case. Finally, punishments that seem appropriate
or are possible vary from community to community. This, says New
York State Judge Steven Fisher, can lead to the creation of
numerous "free-market systems," each reflecting what the local
punishment market will bear.
Reformers are trying to bring some sense of rationality to this
chaotic system. In 1984, following numerous complaints about
sentence disparities, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing
Commission. Its task: to develop for each type of federal crime a
uniform punishment grid, carefully weighted to take into account
such variables as the use of a gun, the amount of money stolen, and
the age of the victim. Federal judges whose sentences deviate from
these guidelines must state their reasons in writing, and their
rulings are subject to appellate review.
The new federal system, which took effect in 1987, appears thus
far to be an improvement over most state systems. But its ultimate
effectiveness remains uncertain. For one thing, says Samuel Alito,
the U.S. Attorney in Newark, N.J., "we don't know how courts of
appeals will treat departures from the guidelines." Other experts,
such as Columbia University law professor Gerard Lynch, argue that
the process of adjusting to the new procedures can be beneficial
"if it forces judges to articulate what they are doing." The U.S.
Sentencing Commission can then analyze whether any changes in its
grid of punishments are called for.
For Jim Bakker, however, federal sentencing reforms have come
too late: the crimes for which he was convicted were committed
before the federal guidelines went into effect. Had they been
applied in his case, he would have received a maximum prison term
of only six years, say most experts. Maximum Bob gave him more than
