Selective compassion

DA stokes an unfortunate perception

America’s criminal justice system is grounded in the lofty ideal that no man or woman is above the law and that justice will be meted out in a neutral and fair-minded manner.

But those involved in the process don’t always live up to these noble principles. And when favoritism and cronyism prevail over equity and impartiality, the integrity of the system is put at risk.

The Review-journal’s Jeff German and David Ferrera reported last week that Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson allowed his relationship with a longtime aide to cloud his judgment. The story raises questions about how Mr. Wolfson employs his vast prosecutorial discretion.

The revelations involve Audrie Locke, the DA’S community liaison and spokeswoman, whose connection to Mr. Wolfson dates back 14 years to his time as a Las Vegas city councilman. Ms. Locke admitted that in 2014 she surreptitiously dipped into her boss’s campaign account and stole nearly $42,000 to fund a gambling addiction.

When Mr. Wolfson learned of the theft, he turned a blind eye to help a trusted confidante. “I believe that this is an aberration,” he told the Review-journal. “I believe she had an illness, and I believe that it’s the illness that caused her to do this … I decided to give her a second chance to prove to me that she would get treatment for her addiction.”

Ms. Locke eventually repaid the money, temporarily resigned her position and sought help for a gambling problem. She was never prosecuted.

The obvious question: Would somebody who didn’t have a close relationship with the county’s top law enforcement officer have received similar treatment? We all know the answer. Mr. Wolfson’s office has prosecuted scores, if not hundreds, of cases involving individuals stealing or writing bad checks to feed a gambling addiction. Did these defendants get a “second chance” from the district attorney’s office?

“He clearly showed mercy for a friend,” said a former federal prosecutor in Las Vegas. “I hope that he exercises his discretion to similarly show mercy for those who may have troubling situations like this woman but who may not have the same kind of access to him as she obviously does.”

Mr. Wolfson broke no laws — prosecutors enjoy wide latitude in deciding whether and how to charge those suspected of criminal wrongdoing. But he made a mistake. The perception now exists that special treatment is available for lawbreakers with a connection to the district attorney. That’s a messy stain on Mr. Wolfson’s tenure.

On Friday, a day after the Review-journal’s revelations about the Locke case, local attorney Robert Langford announced he would run against Mr. Wolfson in the November election. It will now be up to the voters to determine whether to accept the district attorney’s explanations for his selective compassion and leniency toward Ms. Locke.

The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.

The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.

Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor

P.O. Box 70

Las Vegas, NV 89125

Fax 702-383-4676 not ready to move on pot”). He stated, “I’m not going to take an active role in seeking the vacation or seeking the dismissals.”

So Mr. Wolfson won’t take an active role concerning misdemeanor pot charges, but he certainly took an active role in deciding not to charge one of his own employees after she stole $42,000 (Friday Review-journal). He even went as far as calling her “the best employee I’ve ever had in 37 years, times 10.”

So she committed numerous felonies, and she’s the best employee he’s had? Doesn’t say much about the caliber of the rest of the employees working in the DA’S office

Mr. Wolfson, you’re a hypocrite. Believe me, many of us will remember your actions come election time. is the right of self-defense, including the right of armed self-defense. The right to bear arms flows naturally and logically from the right to life.

So saying my right to life supersedes your right to bear arms means my right to life supersedes your right of self-defense, and hence my right to life supersedes your right to life.

Broken down to its core, this child’s policy is childish selfishness.