Nebraska's CSI Scandal: Punishment vs. Poetic Justice

Trying to figure out how much jail time a law enforcement officer should serve for planting evidence isn't easy.

But that's exactly the conundrum that faced the judge who this week sentenced a former Nebraska crime scene investigator for planting evidence that led two people to be charged for a murder they didn't commit. The former Douglas County investigator, David Kofoed, was convicted this March of planting blood evidence to bolster charges against two men, Matthew Livers and Nicholas Sampson, in a 2006 murder case. The two men were held in jail for about 10 months before evidence of their innocence surfaced and they were cleared. (Two Wisconsin teenagers would eventually plead guilty to the murders.)

Ultimately for his crime, Kofoed was sentenced to serve between 20 months and four years in prison. He could be eligible for parole after 10 months.

Two innocent men spent 10 months in jail, thanks to Kofoed's misconduct. And now, Kofoed will spend (at least) 10 months paying for his crime. Is this "poetic justice," as the man who prosecuted Kofoed called it? Or is it an excessive sentence for a perpetrator who has been sufficiently shamed? Or is it a slap on the wrist for someone caught abusing his powers?

I tend to think 'poetic justice' is a good way of putting it: the sentence equals the time served by the innocent men wrongfully charged, and it accomplishes its goal of punishment and deterrence. A short sentence sends a sufficient message that Kofoed's actions were unacceptable, and that law enforcement abuses of power will not be overlooked. A longer sentence — like the 150 years given to Bernie Madoff — simply makes a mockery of sentencing and perpetuates a system that throws lives away too easily.

Kofoed's defense attorney, Steve Lefler, made a solid, but unsuccessful, argument for leniency. Asking that his client be sentenced to probation, with no jail time, Lefler said: "Mr. Kofoed is not a risk to re-offend. He is not a threat to society. Dave Kofoed will not ever get hired by another police department in the United States.”

As regular readers know, I'm not usually a big fan of harsh sentencing for the sake of punishment — or convinced that such sentences actually have a deterrent effect. Short sentences, though, can be an important way to send a message that crimes are taken seriously — especially in this case, because there's always the fear that police can get away with anything. Kofoed's case is a rare one in which an official has actually been held criminally accountable for his misdeeds. A prison sentence is the right move to send a message to other crooked investigators that this kind of abuse won't be tolerated.

What if Kofoed's misconduct had resulted a life sentence for Livers and Sampson? Should he have also received the same punishment? No. In that case, though Kofoed should perhaps get more than 10 months, glibly handing out a life sentence still wouldn't accomplish anything. It would burden taxpayers and destroy a person's life, when a much shorter sentence would have had the same impact — the expression of society's disapproval.

Score one sane sentencing — and for poetic justice.

Photo Credit: Alan Cleaver 2000