Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
We're working to fix a technical issue causing problems with our broadcasts. We'll have it resolved as soon as possible. We apologize for the inconvenience.

University Of Montana Law Professor Says Gianforte Sentence Is Reasonable

Gallatin County Court House in Bozeman, MT.
PD
Gallatin County Court House in Bozeman, MT.

Gallatin County’s law enforcement and courts are being criticized by some for how they’ve handled GregGianforte’s assault case. Some say he’s getting special treatment. University of Montana Law Professor Andrew King-Ries says that charge is easy to make when it comes to sentencing, which he says, is meant to be tailored to the individual in Montana.Andrew King-Ries: For this particular individual, what is the appropriate sentence? And the judge was talking about, what's appropriate for both punishment and rehabilitation? What's going to serve the community best?

So, the judge is trying to individualize the sentence, and in that way it looks like you're treating this person differently than everyone else. But you are. You're trying to figure out what's going to work for this person, or what's appropriate in this situation.

But as the judge also acknowledged, I'm trying to treat you the same way I'm going to treat anyone else who walked in here. So he said I'm going to hold you accountable in these ways, and he also acknowledged he's going to give you a deferred sentence. So he gave Mr. Gianforte a deferred sentence.

Eric Whitney: On the other side of that, this is a unique individual because he is an elected member of Congress, and he did take an action that many people see as stifling a free press. Would it have been appropriate for the judged to have tailored a sentence to hold him accountable as an elected official for respecting the rights of a free press?

AKR: I think you could say, do we have a public official, and a public official in some way should be held to a higher standard? Right? Because you're saying the public official has other interests that they have to respect and advance. And a democracy only functions when we are basing that on a free press, so that we have an informed electorate? Right?

There's a very important value there. The judge could have easily said, 'Mr. Gianforte you've violated our public trust,' and could have sentenced him much more harshly than he he did. That would have been defensible, this is a discretionary sentencing state. So we give judges a lot of discretion to come up with the appropriate sentences. Other states have standard sentencing guidelines, where you commit an offense, you have this criminal history, you get this sentence. It's not individualized the same way.

The question is, is it a reasonable sentence? And I think reasonable people could say, Judge West should have sent him to jail for four days, absolutely. Or should have required more from him for punishment, for violating that public trust. I think that would have been a reasonable sentence as well.

EW: Given what you've talked about as his role as an elected official who's accountable for protecting a free press and democracy, do you think the judge's sentence, choosing not to go that route and hold him accountable for his attack on the media, constitutes him getting preferential treatment or special treatment?

AKR: I don't think it's preferential treatment when you could have two different decisions that are both reasonable. I think it's fair for a judge to wrestle with that, and clearly Judge West wrestled with, what's the appropriate sentence here? How are we going to get the interests of the criminal justice system most advanced?

So the fact that you could come out two different ways, is exactly what Mr. Jacobs is saying - is, we can disagree about these things, but we have to do it in a civil fashion. And that's OK, let's have a conversation about that.

If I were the judge would I have done something differently? Perhaps. But that doesn't make my decision right. Or Judge West's decision wrong.

So, I don't see it as preferential treatment in that way at all. Just because we assign discretion somewhere doesn't mean it's preferential treatment. Of course you always have to keep in mind the systemic issues you're talking about, so institutional racism, right?

The socioeconomic classism is inherent in our system. So, of course you have to keep that stuff in mind and ask yourself, is he making that decision because we have a wealthy white guy in there?

Eric Whitney is NPR's Mountain West/Great Plains Bureau Chief, and was the former news director for Montana Public Radio.
Become a sustaining member for as low as $5/month
Make an annual or one-time donation to support MTPR
Pay an existing pledge or update your payment information
Related Content