Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedOJ Simpson walks free twice, but Wesley Snipes gets three years in jail for tax evasion. Is this justice?
Results so far:
| Yes | 27% | 3 votes | Total: 11 votes | |
| No | 73% | 8 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOf course its justice, Wesley Snipes broke the law by failing to pay taxes. Would it have served justice more if Mr. Snipes was allowed to walk like OJ Simpson? Of course not, it would have been another miscarriage of justice, just as Mr. Simpson's ability to dodge the bullet of justice twice. However, comparing these two separate celebrity incidents is irrelevant. Neither has a thing to do with the other.
The real question when looking at these two incidents is deciding why justice applies to one person but not the other. Many people associated OJ Simpson's trial victories largely to his dream team of lawyers and celebrity status. This is why when another celebrity such as Wesley Snipes finds himself in trouble with the law people have a tendency to draw comparisons. Had the legal situations been the same and Wesley Snipes been on trial for double homicide or OJ Simpson on trial for tax evasion there would indeed be reason to compare the two so closely. But to associate one with the other because they are African American celebrities is a mistake.
Convicting someone of murder is much more complicate and difficult than convicting someone of tax evasion. Given the penalties associated with each of these crimes the juries hearing the cases are given very different instructions as to what is required to reach a conviction or acquittal. It is also important to understand the type of evidence needed to prove guilt in one crime versus the other. In the case of murder a conviction must be based on scientific evidence collected from the scene of the crime, witness testimony and police procedures. None of these sources is one hundred percent reliable, in fact the latter two turned out to be notoriously unreliable and ultimately cost the state the case.
With tax evasion the standards for evidence collection and handling are much more relaxed. Forensic accounting practices that aid in determining if tax evasion is present in someone's records is evidence that is far more precise. There are no witnesses per se that need to be questioned and credited. There is more often than not a clear paper trail of money coming in and going out that can be verified direct from source to source. Even if the accused fails to keep accurate records, those on either side of the transaction are likely to do so in order to protect themselves. Therefore it is much easier to collect sufficient evidence to convict someone of tax evasion rather than murder.
Juries are instructed very differently in the two trials as well. With the potential for sentencing a person to life in prison or worse, jurors on a murder trial my find themselves more readily placed in difficult positions of determining guilt. Only a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime is needed to dissuade a person from ruling against an accused murder. With the defense and their experts shooting holes in the prosecution's evidence and collection methods, it is much easier to convince a juror that something was amiss during the murder investigation, while the evidence in a tax evasion case tends to speak for itself.
There are very few things in life that are absolute and have only a single answer; mathematical problems are one of those things. This is why it is much easier to believe the math laid out before the jury in a tax evasion trial than it is to believe the story that a prosecutor must construct and sell to a jury with the evidence in a murder trial. Whether either party was guilty of the crimes they were accused, the fact of the matter is they were very different circumstances and therefore cannot be compared to in a one to one relationship as this question attempts to do. Assuming that both were guilty, as this question seems to do, then both men walking away from a conviction would be a complete miscarriage of justice. One guilty party being convicted is justice served, even if in a diminished capacity.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Whalen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Guilty or not, I believe it was a gross miscarriage of justice that actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced to 36 months in prison for income tax evasion. According to Ocala FL court records, Snipes was convicted of three charges for deliberately not paying his taxes for as long as ten years. IRS records show he earned an adjusted gross income of more than $19 million during that time and paid no income taxes, and further, he was charged for an alleged bogus refund claim, in which he had said he was entitled to more than $7 million in refunds.
Although Snipes apologized, promised to make restitution and asked the court to show mercy, the judge said there could be no special consideration just because Snipes is a celebrity. He added that he hoped this will be an example for other wealthy people who may consider trying the same illegal actions. The judge ignored Snipe's plea.
In my opinion, a fair sentence would have been to require Snipes to pay all of his back taxes plus penalties over a specific amount of probation time. As a successful actor who commands big fees, Snipes could probably erase the debt within four or five years. He certainly can't begin to repay while sitting in jail.
Snipes was not ordered to jail immediately, and the judge said he would later determine the date and place of confinement. The actor, who has no prior criminal record, said his attorneys were considering plans to file actions for a new trial, dismissal of the sentence or to reduce the sentence to no jail time and probation.
OK, that's where the situation is today. Let's look at Snipe's offense and sentence in the light of other high-profile celebrity court cases. The first one to come to mind, of course, is the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. He was accused of killing his estranged wife and a young man who was with her. In a strange twist of justice, he was acquitted of murder, but in a civil action was ordered to pay millions to the man's family for "wrongful death." It isn't likely the family will see much of that money.
Simpson was later involved in a fracas in Las Vegas and has been accused to intimidating people with a pistol in a hotel room. The case is still pending, and meanwhile Simpson is walking the streets once again a free man. Although Simpson claims he has been busy looking for the past ten years, the murderer of his wife and friend has still not been brought to justice.
How about the case of little, innocent Bobby Blake. who is running around free for nearly seven years since his wife was killed execution style in his car while he had dinner in a nearby restaurant. His case still isn't resolved.
Willie Nelson's case is very similar to that of Snipes. In 1990, he went to court for evading more than $16 million in income taxes over a decade. He received a suspended sentence with the understanding that he would pay it back. It took him three years of heavy concert schedules and recordings, but he paid up the back taxes and hefty fine involved.
If guilty, Snipes does deserve appropriate punishment. However, sentencing him to prison for the purpose of warning off other high-profile potential tax offenders is unfair and discriminatory. Further, by putting him behind bars, taxpayers will have to pay for everything involved, and the IRS will probably never see a penny of the money Snipes owes in back taxes.
Learn more about this author, Ted Sherman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- People in the News
- Was Tricia Walsh Smith justified in using YouTube to tell her story?
- President Hillary proposes $5K in baby bonds: Good or bad?
- Should Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) have resigned?
- Should Michael Vick have received a stronger sentence?
- Should Bush and Cheney be indicted for war crimes?
- Has Paris Hilton found God?
