The sentence handed down last week to Mohammad Usman, a former member of the class of 2010, left us concerned that Usman's crime was answered with little more than a slap on the wrist. As reported this week ("Usman receives three years probation, fine," July 7), Usman's actions fraudulently collecting $18,615 from the College in the form of College grants and federal work study funding could have cost him $250,000 in fines and 15 years of jail time. His actual punishment is mild by comparison: a $2,200 fine, 100 hours of community service and three years probation.
We are less worried about the extent of Usman's sentence, however, than with the actions of Assistant U.S. Attorney Alfred Rubega, the prosecutor in the case, who encouraged leniency as part of a plea agreement with Usman ("Former Dartmouth student pleads guilty to financial aid fraud," Apr. 3), and Concord Chief District Judge Steven McAuliffe, who went along with those recommendations. The most likely rationale for the court's decision is one that is common: young offenders should be given lighter sentences because making mistakes is part of growing up.
To be sure, this rationale can be justified, particularly if the crime is relatively harmless. New Hampshire statute, for example, requires that students who skinny-dip in the Connecticut River be charged with public nudity a crime that requires the culprit to register as a sex offender. Hanover Police officers, however, will often write up swimmers for smaller infractions such as noise violations.
While a clothesless jaunt in the Connecticut is a reasonable mistake of the young, deliberately committing fraud is not. Usman violated the implicit trust granted him by the College, took funding opportunities away from classmates and committed fraud. No one can claim naivety or youthful ignorance for activities this destructive. Why, then, was Usman not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
When one considers Usman's criminal record in 2007, he received a $500 fine after pleading guilty to misrepresenting items he sold on eBay ("Usman pled guilty to separate charge in 2007," Apr. 9) it becomes clear that he had an opportunity to move forward in a better direction. But Usman took advantage of his second chance by planning and executing a crime far worse than the one for which he had previously been repremanded for. Leniency in exchange for the promise of good behavior may be a good policy for minor infractions, but doing the same for serious crimes is no more than a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Usman's sentence reinforces a culture of expectation for clemency in disciplinary measures. Young people should have a safety net for minor offenses, but the court should not forgive serious criminal activity so easily. There is a clear line between a midnight dip in the Connecticut and intentionally destructive behavior that must be upheld in the future, regardless of age.
