Equal Under the Law

Last Friday, Randy J. Gomes and Suzanne M. Pomey, members of the Class of 2002, pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $100,000 from the Hasty Pudding Theatricals organization, after originally maintaining their innocence. Judge Peter Agnes is now deciding whether to accept their pleas.

The criminal penalty for larceny over $250 in Massachusetts is up to five years in prison and restitution to the victim. However, lawyers for Gomes and Pomey argued Friday that Agnes should follow the precedent of Commonwealth v. Brandano, a 1971 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case. Under that procedure, the court would reject Gomes’ and Pomey’s guilty pleas, give them pre-trial probation and continue the case for two years before dismissing it. In short, the Brandano procedure would mean no jail time and no recorded conviction for either Gomes or Pomey, in spite of their admitted guilt.

Allowing Gomes and Pomey this escape would be a judicial farce—a denial of the basic idea that felony larceny carries long-term consequences. The punishment for their admitted theft must be more permanent than repayment of the stolen funds and two years’ probation. The prosecutor’s recommendation that both receive time in prison and perform community service, in addition to fully compensating the Pudding, is far more reasonable. If their guilty pleas are accepted, Gomes and Pomey should be punished like other felons convicted of larceny—they deserve neither special treatment nor clean records.

Gomes said that he was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, while Pomey’s lawyer declared that she was just trying to help her friend Randy. But if prosecutors’ allegations are accurate—that Pomey spent almost $23,000 on shopping sprees and spa visits, while Gomes used about $68,000 buying electronics, traveling and paying off drug dealers—then Gomes’ and Pomey’s reasons in no way excuse their actions.

Gomes’ and Pomey’s lawyers argue that the potential “bright futures” of their clients should result in lighter sentencing but sentences should not be mitigated because criminals have the potential for contributing to society in the future. Intelligence, privilege and education may allow Gomes and Pomey to achieve great things—but they do not constitute extenuating circumstances preventing the imposition of typical criminal penalties for an acknowledged criminal act. Students at elite institutions like Harvard have access to a dazzling plethora of resources and opportunities but the opportunity to escape the consequences of criminal action is not among them. No one likes to see fellow students—our peers, and in some cases, our friends—in such an unfortunate situation. But now that they have admitted their crime, the court should hold them responsible for their actions.

Following the resolution of the pending court case, Gomes and Pomey will likely face disciplinary action by the Harvard Administrative Board. If their guilty pleas are accepted and they are convicted of larceny, even though Gomes and Pomey have completed their graduation requirements, they should be dismissed from the University for conduct unbecoming Harvard students. The University cannot tolerate theft from a student organization. Gomes and Pomey have unequivocally demonstrated that they lack any respect for Harvard’s values of integrity and truth, and they do not deserve to be Harvard alumni.