Disgrace is ultimate penalty for Applebaum
But what message does the two months he actually served send to other officials?
The whiff of corruption in Quebec has claimed political careers and unseated administrations. It spawned a public inquiry and fuelled scandals. It has sparked legislative changes, led to the creation of watchdog bodies and generated investigative exposés.
But at the end of the day, when someone is charged, tried and convicted of breaching public confidence, the penalty meted out might seem underwhelming compared to all the outrage, debate and hand-wringing over the extent of the rot.
Michael Applebaum is in many ways a case in point. The former mayor of Montreal and longtime borough mayor of Notre-Damede-Grâce—Côte-des-Neiges spent just two months behind bars after being convicted on eight fraud charges for demanding a $55,000 kickback connected to a construction project.
By all accounts, he was a model prisoner, participating in animal therapy sessions and going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings even though he didn’t have a drinking problem. And, perhaps most notably, he has now owned up to his crimes and the harm they inflicted after fighting the charges tooth and nail in court. So the Quebec parole board released him, after he served one-sixth of his 12-month jail term. He is still on probation and has to do community service, but he is out from behind bars and back at home.
These decisions are par for the course in the normal administration of justice, however they tend to be met with incomprehension, and sometimes fury, by society at large.
The court system, thankfully, isn’t moved by the barometer of public opinion in such matters. But it is still valid to ask in such cases whether the punishment fits the crime — and whether the justice system is accomplishing the goals it has set for itself.
Judges must weigh several principles in meting out sentences. Besides the circumstances of the case, the particular aggravating or mitigating factors can include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation and separation from society (a.k.a. protecting the public).
When it comes to corruption, I would argue deterrence is the most important of these considerations.
Specific deterrence is the message the censure sends to the offender, the consequences that are supposed to persuade them to not repeat their mistakes. In Applebaum’s case, it’s hard to see how he got off lightly.
He has lost his influence, power and profile. He is up to his eyeballs in debt to his lawyer. He torpedoed his career, both at city hall and in real estate. He has squandered all the respect, dignity and pride he garnered from his public service. He may have compromised his mental and physical health, too. And he has probably wounded his family by putting them through this ordeal.
This is a mess entirely of his own making, so you can hold the sympathy. He did this, he now admits, not to line his own pockets, but to feed the insatiable goat of campaign financing.
For a public office-holder like Applebaum, who staked his success on the approbation and approval of others, disgrace is the ultimate comeuppance.
But what message does the two months he actually served send to other officials who might be tempted to bend the rules, abuse their authority or otherwise breach the public trust out of personal or political greed? This is the real question.
General deterrence is another part of the puzzle judges must contemplate. It’s the cautionary tale, the attempt to dissuade others from going down a similar path. Will two months discourage other risk-takers driven by hubris from cheating the public purse?
White-collar crime is not typically dealt with very harshly by the justice system.
Let’s face it, it’s likely the only reason Applebaum got jail time in the first place was that he denied the fraud until the end, contesting the charges at trial, when his co-accused, councillor Saulie Zajdel and borough inspections director Yves Bisson, pleaded guilty. That was his right, but it’s also a risk. The court offers leniency in exchange for acknowledging wrongdoing.
Pragmatically speaking, it’s hard to justify filling up overcrowded jails with white-collar criminals who aren’t an imminent threat to security when there are many violent offenders who should be taken off the streets. But corruption is not a victimless crime.
Taxpayers and citizens suffer from being constantly forced to pay the inflated price of contracts won through deceptive means. Companies and contractors who play by the rules are hurt where there is a lack of fair competition for public work. And confidence in our very democracy is undermined when those who exploit their influence cling to power.
This is no longer about Applebaum, who has done his time and will live with the consequences for the rest of his life (or as long as the collective memory endures). This is about uprooting the system his crimes served, the one Justice France Charbonneau (but not her co-commissioner Renaud Lachance) uncovered, and warned us is very deeply entrenched.