In the aftermath of Shirley Lasseter's pleading guilty to bribery charges, and is soliciting donations. A defense fund for someone who has plead guilty to bribery charges? Apparently, the bribe money is to be replaced with donations, which will also serve as testimony to the concept that if you have enough friends who are both sympathetic and myopic, crime just might pay.
As might be expected, articles referencing establishment of the defense fund have drawn strong reactions from Patch readers. Their comments present a wide range of opinions about Lasseter, her decision to take a bribe and the way she should be dealt with in the future. Although Lasseter is largely condemned for her actions, some of the comments suggest that while her crime isn't justified in the strictest sense of the word, it's understandable because she needed the money.
History has shown that irrespective of the crime, the perpetrator always has supporters, especially if that perpetrator is, or has been, a public figure. The Lasseter case certainly fits that mold. Supporters justify her crime by citing her financial distress, which is said to include a house lost to foreclosure and the lack of funds to repair a vehicle with a gas gauge that doesn't work. What's left unsaid is that county commissioners are paid approximately $30,000 a year; that's not a particularly high annual income, but it's not bad money for a part time job. Surely Lasseter has enough capabilities to secure the type of employment that would boost her total earnings to at least $60,000 a year. Apparently, she either didn't find that an option worth considering, or refused to reduce her living expenses to a level she could afford. Rather than make the necessary lifestyle adjustments, Lasseter chose to sell out for the relatively paltry sum of $35,000.
As a defense, one of her supporters commented that Lasseter isn't a snake in the grass, she's just a victim of hard times. To gain additional perspective on Lasseter's guilt, the supporter suggests we consider, “there are two sides to every story.” That may be true, but the existence of two sides doesn't imply one is right and the other is wrong. In this instance, side one is that Lasseter needed money; side two is that she had a choice as to the method by which she secured that money. She chose an illegal, rather than legal means.
Attempting to help someone with financial problems is unquestionably a noble pursuit. However, when that pursuit attempts to defend criminal behavior, it becomes ignoble. Shirley Lasseter is no different than the myriad other financially distressed criminals who lie, steal and cheat at the expense of others. Yet those criminals never receive any more consideration than being provided with a public defender. Lasseter is deserving of nothing more. In fact, she deserves less; not only did she commit a crime, she did so while serving as an officer of the county. In so doing, she not only broke the law, she violated the trust of the people who elected her, and became an embarrassment to the citizens. The only saving grace is that she admitted her guilt, rather than attempting to hide behind a charade of innocence.
That may elevate her above “snake-in-the-grass” status, but it doesn't entitle her to special treatment. Nor does it lessen the tarnish she has brought to the county.
What Lasseter did was certainly wrong and deserves to be punished, and will be. But in the big scheme of things it appears to be fairly small potatoes compared to most political corruption, including the financial shenanigans of our current Governor, Nathan Deal. From what I know of Lasseter's past there doesn't appear to be a pattern of corruption that funded any lavish lifestyle. In fact it appears that Lasseter served her community humbly and honorably for many years before making what was obviously a very bad decision. So if some of her friends want to raise money to help her out, what's the big deal? I don't see where that's any of our business.
When you make excuses for her, ask youself this question: How many did NOT compromise? How many are still serving the people that elected them? Excuses, excuses, excuses. Sounds like some are saying, "Well, yeah, I broke into the house but I only stole $25 worth of stuff. It could have been $2500". Give me a break. I agree, let people raise money and give all the support they feel is necessary; not our business to judge what they do. In the end, it comes down to what a judge says anyway.
Had Lasseter been an employee of a private business, and she took a bribe or embezzled money, sentiments would be considerably different because her crime would be the only thing known about her. The fact that Lasseter may have done some good things doesn't lessen her guilt nor entitle her to special treatment. Or rewards.
What would the tone of these comments be if the person that started the bank account had entitled it "Food, Shelter, & Utilities Fund" instead of the "Legal Defense Fund"? Would there even have been an "Opinion" article even written? Not all human beings forget what was taught in church on Sunday as soon as they put their key in the car's ignition. Rosemary Vollmar
Is is amazing what people forget... And people apparently forget there are natural consequences for those actions.
Ahahahahahaha!
How about absolute DISGUST and CONTEMPT for those who would support a drug supporting criminal who betrayed the public trust! I can't believe those of you who think that it's OK because she fell on hard times. Taking money for votes is contemptuous, and taking drug money is the lowest of the low. Hope she gets a lot of prison time.
I've been poor and without food as well but did not steal. I doubt this woman was without food. It appears that she wanted a more lavish lifestyle without considering that her way of obtaining it is to let a criminal element into my neighborhood and my children's schools.There are much better people out there to serve our community. Let's elect them.
I also have to wonder about her ethics in appointing her son to the Zoning Board of Appeals. REALLY?!? - does Gwinnett County not have an anti-nepotism policy??? Obviously relying on our elected officials to do the right thing hasn't been working out too well.