Balancing
fairness
and price
The American justice system may once have been rooted in jury trials, but it is now locked to plea bargains. Some prosecutors estimate that more than 90 percent of all criminal cases are bargained away.
If defendants are willing to concede guilt and prosecutors willing to back off punishment, plea bargains are considered economic and efficient justice.
But are they fair?
Let’s look at two recent cases in Auburn.
Last week, Justice Thomas E. Delahanty II rejected a plea agreement for defendant Christian Averill in connection with the rape last year of a Bates College freshman. The agreement had been for Averill to serve 12 years of a 20-year sentence, which Delahanty deemed too lenient. In response, Averill withdrew his guilty plea and asked for a jury trial.
On Tuesday, Justice Ellen Gorman accepted a plea agreement for defendant Jeffrey Pepin, permitting him to avoid a trial on a charge that he raped a 12-year-old girl in his home. If convicted on the original charge Pepin could have spent 40 years in jail. He was sentenced to just 106 days, all of which had already been served, and he was released.
Two assaults: A sentence of 12 years deemed too kind in one, 106 days just right in another.
In both cases, the District Attorney’s office had no question that an assault occurred.
In both cases, the defendants were represented by George Hess and the state represented by Assistant District Attorney Deborah Potter Cashman.
There are distinct and important differences in these cases.
Averill is alleged to have used a weapon, holding it at the victim’s throat while raping her.
Pepin did not use a weapon, just multiple bottles of Smirnoff Ice to intoxicate the victim.
Averill stands accused of a second rape and has a juvenile record of sexual assault.
Pepin has no previous sex crime convictions.
The case against Averill includes damning DNA evidence.
There was no physical evidence, no DNA, in the case against Pepin.
Averill did not know the victim.
Pepin knew his victim, he had hired her to baby-sit his 4-year-old boy.
What makes the cases most different is the question of context.
There was no consent in the Averill case. The 6th-grader in the Pepin case cannot consent to sex.
But, the victim told police she and Pepin had sex and her testimony held up under scrutiny. The defense had a witness suggesting that the girl’s demeanor after the incident did not support a rape, inplying consent. Sex? Yes. A violent assault? No.
The Averill case, in terms of prosecution, is winnable. The Pepin case was questionable, so Maine gets a bargain on justice.
There certainly are questions in the Pepin case, but there are more similarities than differences between these two examples.
In the end, Pepin walked away with convictions for simple assault and furnishing alcohol to a minor after just 106 days. Averill’s recommended plea bargain, which was 41 times that offered to Pepin, was rejected.
Is there justice in this disparity?
jmeyer@sunjournal.com
Send questions/comments to the editors.
