Sports Celebrity Justice

Many people believe that high profile athletes who are charged with legal transgressions are given favorable treatment by the law because of their celebrity status, while others maintain that they receive harsher treatment than others, in order to set an example within society. The reality is that both positions are accurate, and that overall, some athletes are held to a higher standard and prosecuted more vigorously than may be warranted, and others are afforded excessive leniency. What accounts for the tremendous range in the way sports stars are treated by the law?

Among the variables at play here are, a) the psyche of many athletes who indulge in high-risk off-the-field misconduct, b) the psychological makeup of particular judges, c) overly zealous prosecutors, and d) the psychology of jurors.

Currently, there is an epidemic of sports stars that lose their perspective and cross legal boundaries without regard for the consequences. These athletes have been conditioned from an early age to believe that because of their athletic talent, they can write their own ticket and do whatever they want; and if they get into trouble, they will be protected and bailed out. They often develop a pathological degree of arrogance, grandiosity, and entitlement, a personality triad which I refer to as the toxic athlete profile, which fuels poor judgment and risky choices. The astronomical contracts awarded to athletes these days reinforce an inflated sense of self and encourages them to lose track of appropriate boundaries. Following rules, regulations, and limits are anathema to them. There is a major erosion of respect toward authority among many sports heroes, which parallels what is happening in our culture: pathological narcissism.

A highly publicized case in which a famous athlete was treated leniently by a judge involves Barry Bonds’ attempt to reduce his child support payments. The judge, a self-described ardent baseball fan, granted Bonds’ request, despite his mega-million dollar salary. After delivering this special treatment for the then baseball hero, the judge hastily solicited Bonds’ autograph. Fortunately, this travesty of justice was later reversed.

The recent Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal highlights elements of both sides of celebrity justice. In an extensive nation-wide telephone poll conducted after Vick’s indictment, thirty-six percent of the respondents believed that the Atlanta Falcons’ star quarterback would receive preferential treatment by the court for his alleged heinous acts of animal cruelty, including the hanging, strangling, electrocuting, and drowning of dogs that had performed poorly in testing situations, while only nine percent thought he would be treated worse than the average person.

Surprisingly, there are indications that Michael Vick was treated more harshly than the average person. The federal prosecutor in the case acknowledged that first time offenders like Vick generally are spared a prison term under the sentencing guidelines, but the government viewed the actions of Vick as “heinous, cruel, and inhumane” and, therefore, they would seek time in jail.

Page 6

Once Vick entered a plea deal, his fate was in the hands of presiding Judge Henry Hudson. Hudson, known for his hard-line, non-empathic approach to criminals, was unimpressed by letters of support for Vick and sentenced him to twenty-three months in prison, which was almost at the upper end of what the prosecutors had recommended. Actually, Vick got off easy, because Hudson had full power to exceed the recommended guidelines and impose a sentence of up to five years.

When he was a prosecutor, Hudson had pursued the death penalty against a borderline retarded man for a brutal rape and murder, and won a thirty-year prison term. It was later determined that a serial killer had committed this crime and that the accused man was innocent; but in his memoir Hudson views his aggressive tactics as a “career-defining case.”

There are numerous instances in which overly zealous prosecutors try to make a name for themselves by aggressively pursuing cases against athletes. The Duke lacrosse-rape case stands out as an egregious example. The story is well known, and the sanctions against prosecutor Mike Nifong are fully deserved.

Another case involved Mark Chmura, a Green Bay Packers all-star, who was charged in 2002 with third-degree sexual assault and enticement of a minor. In essence, Chmura was accused of raping a seventeen-year-old former babysitter during a high school after-prom party. The alleged victim claimed that she was attacked in a hot tub encounter with Chmura at the party. There was scant evidence to support these charges, and the football hero, who had declined to visit the White House with his teammates following their 1997 Super Bowl victory because of President Clinton’s “immoral behavior,” was acquitted. At the very least, Chmura used poor judgment in attending a high school prom party, and in so doing he placed himself in potentially vulnerable circumstances even if he was innocent.

The O.J. Simpson trial stands out, of course, as the quintessential example of a sports star who succeeded in being treated leniently by jurors in a murder case. An effective million dollar defense “dream team,” led by Johnnie Cochrane and his “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” message enabled Simpson to gain an acquittal that most people continue to find deplorable.

A somewhat less extreme example of an athlete being treated leniently by an impressionable jury involves the case of Marcus Moore, a Colorado Rockies pitcher. In a stormy trial Moore was acquitted of raping his girlfriend, and one of the jurors later acknowledged that even though all of the jurors thought he was guilty; they didn’t want to convict him because of his “status as a ballplayer.” It seems likely that the jurors in the Moore case were entangled in “the celebrity worship syndrome,” a term coined by psychologists to describe an excessive fascination with the lives of the rich and famous. Interestingly, two psychologists conducted a research study which found that almost one-third of Americans have an unhealthy interest in the lives of celebrities; and in extreme form this preoccupation becomes an addiction.

Returning to the theme of the psyche of the sports hero who freely crosses legal boundaries, I am reminded of the saga of basketball star, Jack Molinas. Molinas was an outstanding New York City high school and college player who was banned for life in 1954, during his first season in the NBA for betting on games in which he played. Molinas then became one of the most corrupt figures in sports history. He was the mastermind of the infamous college point-shaving scandal of 1961.

Molinas was arrested on charges of bribery, attempting to suborn a witness, and conspiracy to fix twenty games involving twenty-two players at twelve colleges. He was offered a plea deal by the authorities in which he would receive a six month prison sentence in exchange for admitting his role in several point-shaving games. Molinas had a genius IQ, and his inflated ego led him to believe that he could present a strong case in his favor. Despite his high IQ, his judgment was poor, and he arrogantly turned down the deal. He was convicted and sentenced to ten to fifteen years. His readiness to play the odds permeated his decision to not play ball with the judicial system, and he lost his bet. In keeping with his level of corruptness, Molinas exhibited a lack of guilt or remorse about his criminal activity. His warped perception prompted him to feel victimized by the system, rather than to recognize his role in compro-

Page 7

mising the integrity of college basketball and damaging the careers and lives of the players enticed into point-shaving. After all, he lamented, “My so called crimes hadn’t hurt anybody except some bettors and some bookies.” In response, the judge excoriated Molinas by stating, “You are a completely immoral person [who] callously used your prestige as a former All-American basketball player to corrupt players and defraud the public.” Molinas won an appeal in which it was ruled that his sentence was excessive, and he served only five years at Attica prison. He subsequently became involved in illegal activities tied to organized crime, and, eventually, in 1975 was murdered, gangland style.

The sample of cases of Barry Bonds, Michael Vick, Mark Chmura, O.J. Simpson, Marcus Moore, and Jack Molinas, involve athletes who crossed boundaries, including one who was a corrupt sport hero. They faced overzealous prosecutors, variable judges, and impressionable jurors. My research suggests that while some athletes are held to a higher standard and others are treated leniently by the law, in general, our culture appears to be moving in a direction in which a harsher standard will apply toward athletes who indulge in moral or legal transgressions.

Page 8