US v. Williams, 86-95-CR-ORL-18.

• Citation: 680 F. Supp. 358
• Decision Date: 13 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-95-CR-ORL-18.,86-95-CR-ORL-18.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles Champ WILLIAMS, Betty A. Williams, Stephen S. Williams, Susan Williams Wood, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

680 F. Supp. 358

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles Champ WILLIAMS, Betty A. Williams, Stephen S. Williams, Susan Williams Wood, Defendants.

No. 86-95-CR-ORL-18.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

November 13, 1987.

William T. Ramsey, Nashville, Tenn., for Susan Williams Wood.

David B. King, Orlando, Fla., for Stephen S. Williams.

Ed Booth, Booth and Arnold, Jacksonville, Fla., for Charles Champ Williams.

Steve Calvacca, Office of the U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for the U.S.

SENTENCING COMMENTS

WATSON, District Judge, Sitting by Designation.

Following a jury trial, the Defendants, Charles Champ Williams, Stephen S. Williams and Susan Williams Wood, were each found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit income tax fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. The Defendant, Betty A. Williams, was found not guilty.

A great deal has been said concerning the Orange County, Florida community and the possibility of punishing the Defendants, Charles Champ Williams, Stephen S. Williams and Susan Williams Wood, by having them perform services for the community. However, this is not a state court sitting in Orange County. There is a larger community and a larger community of interest that is at stake here.

Some persons may feel that sending the Defendants to jail for conspiracy to commit income tax fraud, a white collar crime, is somehow cruel, as if jails are more suited to persons who have committed violent acts, or as if no real purpose other than mindless revenge is satisfied by incarcerating a white collar criminal for his or her "brainy" crime.

I do not hold this view. Just as equality of opportunity and equality of treatment is a goal of this society in all areas, there must also be an element of fairness and equality in the way our criminal justice system applies the punishments provided by law. Thus, if the temporary deprivation of liberty is considered to be a proper punishment for crimes, and if the law provides for imprisonment for crimes, both violent and nonviolent, then this choice represents the democratic and collective wisdom of the people of this country. With these thoughts in mind, the reluctance to send a business person to jail begins to look like an unjustifiable distinction between crimes of cleverness and crimes of violence.

It is true that the rationale of sending someone to jail to protect society from his or her further criminal activity is not a major factor in the present case, as I do not see these Defendants as likely to repeat these crimes. However, I am imposing jail sentences for these Defendants for a number of other valid reasons.

First, there is the obvious and direct reason of punishing bad conduct in a way that shows that the law is still the law and a crime is still a crime. This goes contrary to the apparent trend in this country to alter normal standards of conduct for people who occupy positions of privilege and power in society. By this inverted standard, the further one goes up the scale of achievement and power the more likely are crimes to be treated as mistakes, or mis-judgments, or something less reprehensible than a crime. This is wrong. Such a system can lead our society to tolerate crimes that are on a larger and more efficient scale. Additionally, such a system would be a threat to the rule of law which guarantees all that is beneficial in our lives, aside from maintaining what is punitive.

I also find that deterrence is a major factor in sentencing these Defendants. By this I mean that imposing a jail sentence upon conviction of a crime of this type will affect the conduct of others who may be engaged in, or contemplating, a crime of this type.

The Defendants committed a business crime. Yet, one of the constants in the conduct of business people is that they are particularly attuned to information about conditions affecting their business. Business people plan their projects with tax laws in mind. They are also particularly sensitive to knowing the rules of the game, whether the rule is zoning, health and safety regulations or financing.

One of the big rules of the game is not to cheat the silent partner in all business ventures, the government of the United States. Many of us may feel less than complete happiness with the share taken by this silent partner, but we do not have the right to engage in a full-scale, sustained scheme to cut the silent partner out. We have to...