Lincoln Plowman is a former Indianapolis police officer and City-County Council member who could get up to 30 years in prison after being convicted of bribery and extortion. He was taped in conversations with an undercover FBI agent accepting more than $5,000 in cash and requesting a $1,000 campaign contribution to help plan a strip club downtown. He boasted that he controlled zoning in the city and "that he enjoyed spending taxpayers' money while consorting with prostitutes as a vice officer." Now, 57 letters from his family, friends and colleagues, including a state representative and a councilwoman, have been filed with the court, asking for an "alternative punishment" such as electronic monitoring:
In their letters, Plowman's supporters paint him as a man who was always dedicated to his job and helping others. They said he recently lost his job at a Greenwood factory because of his felony convictions and now finds odd jobs, such as pulling weeds, to help pay the bills. They urged the judge to keep him out of prison so he can support his wife and two young sons.
[. . .]
Speedy wrote that Plowman has suffered enough and doesn't need to be in prison to see the error in his ways.
"He will never hold elected office again," Speedy wrote. "He is financially devastated. . . . I hope and pray that you will see that he and his family have paid a big price for his poor choices already."
He added that the conviction alone has sent a strong message to local politicians.
Plowman's wife, Christina Nye-Plowman, shared the same sentiment, noting that her husband and others have learned from his mistakes.
Of course it's not enough to say that Plowman has "suffered enough" and already seen "the error in his ways." You could say that about most people convicted of something for the first time. The main point of punishment isn't how it affects his well-being but how much it discourages similar behavior by others. It's reaching to say that his conviction alone "has sent a strong message to local politicians." Plenty of politicians have been convicted and served time, and it hasn't seemed to slow down the corruption. People who stray always think they're the ones who'll never get caught.
The most persuasive argument is that an alternative to incarceration would help him support his wife and two young sons, who have already had to suffer for his sins. That would carry more weight if it had been done for the average criminal enough that it wouldn't seem like a special favor for the privileged class in Plowman's case. But it hasn't been, so it will. How many convicted criminals have a state senator going to bat for them? That could actually work against Plowman.
