Monday, August 14, 2006
Former SOCOM official, Tom Spellissy, given 15 months for conspiracy, had a strong background to present at his sentencing hearing. (see Tampa Tribune story here). The judge cited his military background as a basis for the reduction of the sentence. (See Tampa Tribune here) Interestingly, however, according to the Tampa Tribune's story of the accused statements made at sentencing, he did not appear to express remorse. He did, however, show how the conviction "killed" him. (See also AP here). This is yet another example of how the mere conviction of a white collar offender serves as an enormous punishment.
Additionally, Spellissy will not have to go immediately to prison. Unlike former Mayor Campbell in Atlanta, the judge decided that Spellissy can remain on bond until the completion of this appeal. (see St Pete Times here) Is there consistency in when an individual must commence their sentence immediately and when they can wait? Should there be? It does seem like white collar cases have a better chance of having the individual remain on bond. But this may be a factor of the ability of the attorney to present interesting issues on appeal because of the complexity of many white collar crimes, the fact that there might be less of a flight risk with the white collar offender, and perhaps less likelihood of harm, especially when the offender is no longer in a position of power.