Wall-Eyed at Wal-Mart: You Be The Judge

If consequences of malfeasance by our leaders are reduced entirely to home detention, there is a double standard and it is apparent to all.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

It was never my intention in my blogging about leadership to focus so narrowly on ethics. But my long-held belief that most of the top dogs try to do the right thing most of the time -- act with good purpose toward the enterprise and all it touches -- is being challenged by so many decision-makers in so many walks of life, that there is a real need to speak out.

In this case, it is bad enough that a senior official of Wal-Mart spent a half million dollars of shareholders' money on clothes, alcohol, car repairs, hunting trips and training of hunting dogs. Tom Coughlin, former vice chairman was convicted of stealing from the company.

But when the district circuit judge issues "home detention" as the sentence for the fraud on the basis of a combination of failing health and position in the community and good works -- what an outrage!!

Judge Robert Dawson's below-guidelines sentence included no jail time. None. Not even one night. The higher court which over turned the lenient sentence as an abuse of discretion and went on to add: "Perhaps Coughlins family ties and station in the community as well as his lofty corporate position of trust and power (underline added for emphasis) exacerbate the nature of his crimes, especially for Coughlins victims: Wal-Mart and, more generally American business."

If we cannot rely on judges to mete out justice, on whom can we rely? If consequences of malfeasance by our leaders are reduced entirely to home detention, there is a double standard and it is apparent to all. Imagine if the perpetrator had been someone in the mail room -- someone without a lofty position in the community, someone whose good works were less famous, someone less educated.

One of my sons puts forth this thesis: historically, the wealthy may have had their share of scoundrels, but those less well off were predominantly honest, hard-working people who lived their values. As more and more of the rich were unmasked for their unholy deeds and self-dealing, disillusionment has followed and one hears so often: "Everybody does it, why shouldn't I?" and "I'm gonna' get my share just like they do."

And, ultimately, celebrities do not suffer the same harsh justice as "john q. public."

Perhaps you believe integrity is the exception rather than the rule. But America not will not achieve our dreams in the future if corruption is not only too frequent, but handled with kid gloves.

Judge for yourself. You do every day.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot