Elmer Smith: Fumo's just a common crook - let's treat him that way

VINCE FUMO may be the first felon to get time off for good behavior before he went to jail.

But, his summer in the sun won't be nearly as festive this year thanks to the chorus of howls prompted by his wrist-slap, 55-month sentence.

Even now, prosecutors are seeking to appeal his sentence in hopes of tacking on another decade or so. I know of no one more deserving of this kind of public scourging than Fumo.

But, even though I think Judge Ronald Buckwalter's sentence was too lenient, I'm having a problem with the reasons offered for lengthening it.

Both sides are missing a key point in the ongoing controversy: Vince Fumo is a common crook.

As such, he deserves what any common crook would get for crimes of the same magnitude.

Fumo's epic greed was rooted in the idea that he was entitled to do well while doing good. He used his immense power to achieve both ends.

But, show me a powerful crook and I'll show you a crook. What's the difference between a bank president who steals from the vault and a teller who steals from the drawer? It's not character. It's access.

Judge Buckwalter missed that point. His courtroom canonization of Fumo made the judge sound like a man who believes that you can be a common crook and a credit to your community at the same time.

But prosecutors who are attempting to appeal the sentence may be missing the point, too.

What I keep hearing from the people who want to nail Fumo's pelt to the wall is that he should get a tougher sentence so that the justice system can make an example of him.

That doesn't sound like justice to me.

Does another thief deserve a shorter sentence because he is less prominent? You'll never hear a prosecutor or a judge argue that.

Nor am I moved by what prosecutors call "a spontaneous outpouring of public criticsm." I didn't like the sentence, either, but judges and prosecutors shouldn't base their decisions on what you and I like.

They don't do that with other common criminals. Prosecutors decide what kind of sentence to seek based on the facts within the case. Judges are supposed to do the same thing when they sentence.

Instead, both sides agree with Vince Fumo that he is something special and deserves special consideration.

That was the point made by that collection of personal testimonies that was entered into the record at his sentencing: He is special and he deserves special treatment.

My personal favorite was from Arthur Makadon, managing partner of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, the city's most connected law firm.

Makadon reportedly argued that Fumo should be released, presumably after his sentence, "to live permanently among the homeless."

Who are we talking about here, Mother Teresa?

And what is the judge going to do with co-defendant Ruth Arnao this afternoon if she doesn't come in with a briefcase full of personal testimonials?

She was convicted on only a third as many charges as Fumo. So, should she serve a third as long, which would give her a shorter sentence than the two other defendants who pleaded guilty?

Of course, they didn't cite the great man's immense gravitational pull. Arnao told psychiatrists that she was "irrationally devoted" to Fumo and was "incapable of questioning his orders."

She's not the first to be blinded by the light. Judges, prosecutors and people in high places, including Gov. Rendell, have been irrational in their appraisals of Fumo.

The judge and Fumo's friends in high places look at Fumo and see a trusted public servant whose years in office make him deserving of leniency.

Prosecutors see him as a special notch on their gun belts.

They're both wrong. No matter which way you tip the scales of justice, you get injustice.

Fumo has earned a lengthy term with other common criminals - no more, no less. *

Send e-mail to smithel@phillynews.com or call 215-854-2512. For recent columns: http://go.philly.com/smith