Did Washington Wizards’ superstar Gilbert Arenas get celebrity treatment during his day in court? Last Friday, Arenas appeared in D.C. Superior Court on weapons charges and was sentenced to two years of supervised probation, 30 days in a halfway house, required to serve 400 hours of community service and to contribute $5,000 to a fund for victims of violence. Some who have had run-ins with the law see this as a slap on the wrist, an expected pass for a celebrity athlete while others side with the misguided star and believe the judge’s leniency was not influenced by Arenas’ superstar-status.
At the sentencing hearing, Arenas was visibly remorseful, fighting back tears at one point. Based upon his testimony, the court determined that Arenas did not have any harmful intent, but rather that he was someone whose jovial and light-hearted nature was misguided. While I don’t condone Arenas’ foolish acts, I do believe the court’s reasoning for Arenas’ sentence was correct. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that there are not instances where high-profile individuals received sentences that seem rather lenient for their crime, but then again I can also think of individuals who have been made an example of because of their position. Take New York Giant’s ProBowl wide receiver Plaxico Burress for example. He was sentenced to 2 years in prison for bringing a gun, which he owned and had legally registered (though not in New York), into a nightclub and on top of that he also accidently shot himself during the course of the night while walking through the club. On the flip side, you have someone like Chris Brown who avoided jail time and instead was sentenced to 180 days of labor service in Virginia, five years of probation and was ordered to attend a domestic-abuse program for a year for allegedly assaulting his former girlfriend, Rihanna.
Clearly a celebrity’s status can cut both ways when it comes to criminal sentencing. Therefore, I am not suggesting that high profile individuals should receive special treatment because of their celebrity or financial status, but I don’t think they should be treated more harshly either. We are often too quick to attribute a court’s leniency to that individual’s status and in doing so we automatically attach a stigma of guilt to these individuals solely based on their wealth or social prominence. Although, a high profile individual’s criminal case might garner more attention, it is important to understand, that legally speaking, although allegations exist, individuals are first presumed innocent, even if they are a celebrity.
The Legal Correspondent 