Show me a picture!

This diagram shows key elements in the Pickering / Swan affair. Inspired by Roger Ailes excellent coverage of this matter.



What it's all about:
Conservatives assert that Pickering reduced Swan's sentence because it was disproportionate to the punishment for the other two - plain and simple. As if he was a judge, new to the scene, making an impartial review. They also point out that the Clinton Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights was involved in the case, and bears some responsibility for the various deals/sentences.

Opponents of Pickering note that he was involved with the other two deals, approved them, and it's inconsistent for Pickering to attack Swan's sentence for being disproportionate. Also, in Senate hearings Pickering testified that (at some point in the process) he had no knowledge of a specific issue - the juvenile's use of a gun. But from the beginning, that fact was firmly established and recorded in the trial transcript.

One thing that hasn't gotten much play is that of the three culprits, Swan was the most mature (the others being a juvenile or low-IQ), was instrumental in carrying out the cross-burning (they used his truck and materials), and therefore deserved a tougher plea-bargain offering. When conservatives tell the tale, the juvenile is the ring-leader and Swan a mere tag-along - unworthy of harsh punishment.

References
Pro-Pickering: Byron York (National Review), WSJ Editorial, Byron York again
Anti-Pickering: Michael Crowley (TNR)
Other: Washington Post Media Notes (Kurtz), Yahoo page on the issue, Frist on Meet The Press


posted by Quiddity at 1/11/2003 03:11:00 PM