Jamal Lewis ran for 116 yards on 28 carries on Sunday night against the spiraling Washington Redskins, more yards than the entire 'Skins offense could manage on national television. It was far from a spectacular effort from the man who holds the single-game rushing record, but it was a worthy effort from one of the NFL's best backs.
Too bad he had no business being on that field, or any football field for that matter. Jamal Lewis pled guilty to federal drug conspiracy charges late last week and was sentenced to four months in prison and two additional months in a halfway house. The NFL promptly suspended him for two games without pay and fined him for two more. In all, the punishment handed down by Commissioner Paul Tagliabue will set Lewis back $761,000. The kicker? The sentence will not be served until after the season ends. In essence, the judge agreed that Lewis' job was more important than jail time and Tagliabue only encouraged such behavior by punishing him less than a sixth of the time that the government deemed appropriate.
I do not pretend to know all the intricacies of the case nor of the legal system that handed down the punishment; however, what is easily recognizable to even the most casual observer is that once again a celebrity was treated differently by our justice system.
Were you or I, or a professor here at Dartmouth convicted of such a charge we would surely be severely censured, with a student most likely being expelled and a professor losing his or her job, not to mention immediate jail time. I highly doubt the court system would defer imprisonment until after the term ended.
Jamal Lewis' case is no isolated incident; that athletes, and celebrities in general, receive different treatment can be seen in numerous instances. Kobe Bryant almost certainly benefited from his star status in his recent rape trial and Rafael Furcal is in a situation similar to Jamal Lewis.
Furcal was arrested Sept. 10 for his second DUI in four years while still on probation. For parole violation he was sentenced to 21 days in jail and 28 days in a treatment program, while the second charge is still pending. Originally the sentence was set for the end of the baseball season, but the Braves foray into the postseason forced the judge to delay the punishment for a second time. I would be curious to read the justification of such a move. Were an electrician to ask to delay his imprisonment until he completed his current job I'm sure the judge would scoff and order the bailiff to cart the man off.
These individual cases are, of course, indicative of a deeper problem, one in which we prioritize our society on faulty assumptions about people's relative worth. Why should an entertainer (for that is what athletes are) receive any more consideration than an electrician, or a professor? I refuse to believe the reason is simply that the wealthier can afford better lawyers, rather, the bias has worked its way into our "impartial judges."
We believe than when we stand in a courtroom we do so in front of an impartial judge and jury and are presumed innocent. These central assumptions to our judicial system seem to get thrown out when a professional athlete steps through the door. Innocence or guilt are less important than allowing athletes to do what they do best, entertain. Judges seem to feel it is their duty not to deprive the public of the weekend ritual of sports adulation, when in fact they must answer to a higher calling.
Even with the suspension, Jamal Lewis is on pace to rush for more than a thousand yards and it would surprise no one if he was selected to another Pro Bowl. Whether or not he is actually allowed to play in the game is up to a judge, though the current trend gives every indication that Jamal Lewis can buy plane tickets to Hawaii without fear of sanction. The rules have already been bent enough, why not one more time?