The case came in the same week as a very public ding-dong about the prosecution of corporate crime. The public perception is that the corporate crims get away with it, probably because they have smart lawyers.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Michael Rozenes, has given an other couple of reasons. One was that the corporate watchdogs are more interested in protecting shareholders and creditors than in jailing crooks. The other was that the judge and the lawyers are not the smartest people in the courtroom, rather the corporate crims is.
Very few plead guilty. Greenburg is, so far the only woman.
Greenburg is the other end of the corporate-prosecution injustice. When you have no money left, or no family with money left to pay the high-class lawyers, there is no bargaining power. The easy way out of restitution, civil penalties and plea bargaining is not available.
And as if to make up for all the crooks that get let off or get away because of dilatory investigations, the wretch that is caught is made an example of. The system has failed to ensure deterrence by ensuring that say, 80 per cent of the corporate crooks get caught and punished. So it attempt deterrence by visiting disproportionate sentences on those that are caught or plead guilty: 80 per cent of the penalty to 20 per cent of the crims.
Robin Greenburg is a bit like the three Afghans who also appeared in yesterday’s paper: strung up in the public square as a deterrence in an environment of uncontrollable lawlessness: in Afghanistan street violence, in Australia corporate crookedness.
There are several things wrong with Greenburg’s sentence.
It makes her a martyr. She was a woman, so people will feel she has been treated more severely because of that.
It will make future malefactors reluctant to plea guilty. Greenburg pleaded guilty to 55 charges. The consequences were a much heavier sentence. Prosecutors deny it, by defendants can indulge in plea bargaining. Certainly, the DPP’s office will balance the risk and cost of a trial against the plea to a lower level of the same charge. This example will make lawyers advising those charged not to plead guilty because it does you no good.
It brings the criminal-justice system into disrepute by comparisons with other sentences. A 15-year non-parole period is the ball-park sentence for murder and serious manslaughter. Armed robbery, aggravated assault, serious arson and aggravated rape will usually attract lower or similar sentences.
It is important for society to protect itself by putting violent people away for a long time because violent people can re-offend very easily. The mere presence of another human is sufficient condition for a repeat offence. However, society does not have to protect itself against Greenburg by putting her away for a long time. Her offences are unlikely to be repeated because it is unimaginable that after the publicity of her collapse that she would be trusted with even a credit card again, let alone millions of dollars.
It seems, therefore, that Greenburg’s sentence can only be explained as a punishment (which is excessive compared with those for violence crime) or as a deterrence (which is excessive because people might conclude that it has visited all the crimes of corporate Australia on one woman).
I don’t have the advantage of the judge of having full details of a case before sentencing, but I, like any member of the public, can look at sentences and weigh them against the charges and compared them with other sentences. This pathetic crook with her personality disorders deserved about 10 or 11 years with a non-parole period of eight or nine.