A couple of things bother me about this case…and in the interest of Full Disclosure, let me state that I have met Fred Willard a few times. I wouldn't call him a friend but he has always been charming and gracious to me. We also have a lot of mutual acquaintances and they are unanimous in their love of the guy and admiration for his talent.
The offense he's accused of committing strikes me as one of those laws that police should not be enforcing…you know, like in some states, it's illegal for a married couple to have sex certain ways. That cops spend time patroling X-rated movie theaters seems to me a misuse of a precious resource…and this ties in with a piece I've been meaning to write here, which is that the current mania in some corners of this land to slash budgets and not raise taxes has left a lot of essential government functions understaffed. Even most staunch Tea Partiers and Libertarians would kinda like it if, say, they called the police in an emergency and there were sufficient officers to respond.
I'm currently involved in two police matters where we're basically waiting for the L.A.P.D. to have the manpower to go out and arrest several people who committed real crimes…the kind with victims. The police have all the evidence — I played gumshoe and compiled it all for them and when I handed it over, the detective described it as "airtight." But every week or so, he just phones me up and says it's still "Cat 2." That means "Category 2," a case they'll act on when they have time because no one's life or well-being is threatened. Next time he calls, I'm going to suggest that police could make one less sweep of the Tiki Adult Theater and instead send those officers out to arrest some actual thieves.
(And this is not just a matter of me wanting my case handled for my reasons. It's more than likely that the robbers in this case think by now that they got away with it. Which means they're probably using the same modus operandi to rob others.)
So that's all one thing that bothers me about what's happening with Fred Willard. Another is this: Latest reports say that he can avoid prosecution and incarceration by — well, here. I'll let you read it for yourself…
Fred Willard will not have to face jail time after police, during a routine inspection of an East Hollywood theater, arrested him on suspicion of engaging in a lewd act earlier this week. Willard will be able to enroll in a "pre-filing diversion program" in lieu of a criminal filing, said Frank Mateljan, spokesman for City Atty. Carmen Trutanich. The program is administered by an outside vendor and costs about $380. There are diversion programs for a variety of offenses, including drug and alcohol abuse, in addition to sex-related crimes.
"I want to stress this was and is a fileable case, and should the defendant choose not to enroll or not complete the program, we have the option of filing criminal charges within a year," Mateljan said.
In other words, he can admit guilt and get off (no pun intended) for almost nothing…or he can fight it out in court which will take time, money and a lot of stress, plus he's running the risk that he'll get some sort of dysfunctional trial and be found guilty and get a year in prison and probably other severe punishments.
If he's guilty, it's a great deal. But, uh, what if he's not guilty?
He might not be. The theater owner says he never saw Willard in there before and didn't see him doing anything illegal that night. He says the police frequently come into his place and hassle patrons. Let's imagine for a moment that it isn't Fred Willard in this matter; that it's you and you didn't do it. Let's even imagine that a trial wouldn't come down to your word against the cops. Let's imagine you have other witnesses who were present and willing to testify that the arresting officer was either mistaken or lying. What would you do?
You'd probably do the same thing you'd do if you were guilty and grab that deal. For $380 — a teensy fraction of what you'll pay your attorney — you can end this, put it behind you and not spend what could be months wondering if you'll get a looney judge who'll ignore the evidence and send you off to the slammer. Look at all the people who've spent years on Death Row before it was determined that they were innocent. Are you willing to gamble your freedom on that judicial system? Not likely. A trial might also involve a lot of uncomfortable questions about your sex life and what the hell you were doing in that theater and it would prolong the negative publicity and the stories in the tabloids and…
No, you'd end it all and enroll in the program. Even if you were utterly innocent.
That's what I'd do. They've made pleading guilty relatively painless and quick, whereas proving your innocence is costly in terms of time, money and stomach lining, plus it's risky. In Willard's case, it's extra-risky since he apparently has one previous incident of "lewd conduct" on his record. Judges and juries often think, "Well, if he did it before, he probably did it again." He also lost one job already — seemingly within seconds of the arrest — and might lose more if the matter goes on and on and on.
I realize that "plea bargains" are a long-standing and generally-effective way to unclog our always-crowded courts. They have their place. But I suspect Fred Willard is going to effectively plead guilty not because he's guilty (though he may be) but because it just plain costs too much to be innocent these days.