Although former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is a relatively young woman, for all intents and purposes, her professional life as a lawyer is over. She has just been sentenced for a period of from 10 to 23 months in prison. She is incredibly lucky; had the judge been vindictive, she could have faced 12 to 24 years. Kane’s lawyer reasoned her shortened 
sentence is punishment enough as all of her status and position is gone. When it comes to political ethics (some would argue there are none) Kathleen Kane knew better than to make the choices she did. And, every choice has a consequence.
She has teenaged children and she begged for mercy at the sentencing. When she leaves prison, she will serve eight years’ probation. She was once a rising star in Democratic circles and now she will be given a prison uniform and a number. All of her problems are the consequences of poor choices when it comes to public service and political ethics.
Political Ethics: Retribution
This past August, Kathleen Kane was forced to resign following a conviction of perjury and obstruction, both clear examples of political ethics gone bad. She has expressed remorse (of course), and she is appealing (of course), but her bruised ego will eventually be forced to concede the fact that her common sense and vision were clouded by her anger and arrogance.
The problem she created for herself stemmed from a story written in a local newspaper and a charge by her predecessor that she intentionally dropped an investigation into Democratic politicians accepting bribes. Kane’s predecessor, the one who had initiated the probe was a Republican, Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fina.
Kane could have let the charges go, or she could have explored the charges. Instead, Kane decided to wage a war, a personal vendetta against Fina. This is where there is no political ethics – and let’s be honest, she knew better. She did this by intentionally leaking sealed grand jury documents about a former case that Fina had explored. The case was highly-charged both politically and racially, and the reason it was sealed was that the Grand Jury conducted its meetings on a confidential basis. Then Kane lied that she did no such thing. That is the essence of the twisted case and political ethics gone awry.
Leaking sealed information in confidential cases is an extremely serious offense, and it undermines the very foundations of our legal system.
As Kane’s vindictive game began to unravel through investigations, even fellow Democrats like Gov. Tom Wolf urged her to resign. Had she resigned, she might have saved face, but she adamantly denied she was guilty. She felt herself above the law.
What Will The Judge Do?
The prosecutors want Kathleen Kane to go to jail as she eroded public trust in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office. Her defense team says that she is not a threat to society, and she should – at worst – be confined to house arrest. She wants to be at home, and not in jail, in order to raise her two sons. I wanted the same, but sometimes breaking the law earns us something other than what we might want.
Has Kathleen Kane suffered enough? Whether behind bars – or not, she has lost her law license, has been publicly humiliated and will not be able to run for any public office again. With eight years’ probation, her travel will be restricted and she will obviously suffer problems with applying for future employment and even memberships. When it comes to political ethics there might be challenges in applying ethical judgment to situations, but vindictive actions can yeild some profound outcomes.
Does her crime warrant being jailed? What she did in leaking sealed documents was not victimless. People under oath were “exposed,” the Grand Jury and its deliberations were revealed and people might have been put at risk.
If Ms. Kane never sees a jail cell, what of future cases where Grand Jury documents might get “leaked” for political reasons? She has a family, that is true, but what of a man placed under arrest who has a family? Should he not have the same consequence?
It is hard to know where the consequences of this case will settle. My guess would be “somewhere in the middle.” My belief is that she will serve some time plus the probation. She is married and her husband will need to assume all of the rearing duties, at least for a little while.
One thing must be made clear: no one is above the law; not the Attorney General, not anyone.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
