Tammy Gibson was a mother who cared enough about her daughter that she was ready to beat William Baldwin to death.  When everything was over, including her prosecution, she was ready to do it again.  And her hope is that next time, she will have greater success.  What do we do with Tammy Gibson?

Doug Berman asked the question at Sentencing Law & Policy, then asked some other blawgers what they thought about it.  It was a great question. 

According to police documents, Level-3 sex offender William A. Baldwin had moved into his uncle’s home in Tacoma in early June. Following his move, county deputies distributed flyers around the neighborhood to alert residents of his presence. On June 19, Gibson went to the house in the trailer park and asked for Baldwin.  When Baldwin stepped outside, she claimed she was going to kill him because Baldwin had molested her children. Gibson then proceeded to hit Baldwin repeatedly with her bat, the document said, leaving him with an injured arm. “I kept swingin’ and swingin’, and swingin’,” Gibson told investigators.

Contrary to what she had said to Baldwin, Gibson later told investigators Baldwin had not molested her children. But she did say that she recognized Baldwin from the flyer as the man who had chatted up her then-10-year-old daughter during the previous summer.  Baldwin is the memorable height of 7 feet, 3 inches tall. “For him to be right there, in front of my house and talking to my child — made me crazy,” she told KOMO. “And I told him I thought he was a piece of crap and I smacked him,” she added. “I just didn’t stop hitting him. I just told him that ‘if it were up to me, I’d kill ya.”‘… 

According to the ABC story, Gibson received a 3 month sentence for her efforts.  One of her daughters, Rachael Porter, reacted:

“I think it’s crap; that she was protecting her kids like she should have been. They locked her up for way too long.”

Protecting one’s children can be a very vague concept.  Tammy made clear that she was by no means deterred. 

“No, I’d do it again if not better,” she told ABC News Seattle affiliate KOMO-TV. “I don’t care if it hurts me, I don’t regret it. It got him away from my kids and all the other kids in the neighborhood.”

So many of the issues wrapped around sentencing, sex offenders, vigilantism and motherhood come into play here that this case is tantamount to a Rorschach test for criminal sentencing.  Which side are you on, boys. Which side are you on?

Criminal defense lawyers often talk of jury nullification, the sense of the ordinary citizen that a person should not be convicted for his conduct despite the fact that it is against the law.  This may be because the law is perceived as unjust, or the defendant is perceived as not being morally culpable.  In either event, we look to a jury to free the defendant from the technical yokes the law would otherwise require be applied.

The Tammy Gibson case is perhaps the antithesis of jury nullification.  It is institutional nullification, where the officials who make the wheels of the system grind, the police, prosecutors and judges, are unable to muster the degree of anger toward Tammy Gibson to do more than go through the motions.  A three month sentence for beating another person with a baseball bat is, under almost any other scenario, trivial.  Why should this be different.

The set up here clearly tugs at the heartstrings of the institution.  A mom who, whether technically right or wrong, is acting out of love and protection for her child.  A sex offender, an individual most despised by the institution of all.  One holds the status of moral righteousness in the eyes and minds of the institution, while the other is as worthless and morally disgusting as any person can be.  One is worthy. The other will never be worthy.  Is there anyone who, in the heart, can’t appreciate the feelings that ran through Tammy Gibson, believing that this man tried to go after her baby?

Of course, William Baldwin did not harm Tammy Gibson’s daughter.  William Baldwin was inside his home, doing nothing wrong, when Tammy Gibson chose to attack.  As much as Baldwin may be relegated to the human junk heap in the eyes of many, he was a human being entitled to exist without being the target of death of any person who felt entitled to pick up a bat and beat him to death.  Certainly, we can’t have moms trying to murder people at will for perceived wrongs that never actually happened.  Certainly, people can’t simply decided that sex offenders are perpetually fair game for harm.

Tammy Gibson’s reaction to her prosecution and sentence invokes two of the fundamental premises of sentencing, general and specific deterrence.  She is the poster child.  For many parents with perceived grievances against a sex offender, a three month sentence might be seen as a cheap price to pay to get in a good beating.  Rather than deter such crimes, it could prove to be an incentive.  If I felt that someone might harm my child, I would happily put three months at risk.  Probably a whole lot longer.

Adding fuel to the fire is Tammy Gibson’s challenge to the system, affirming her belief that she was right to attack and that she will not be deterred.  This is an intolerable position, regardless of what one thinks of her motives.  To ignore it is to invite her to take a second shot.  I suspect the judge realizes this, but isn’t overly concerned about losing sleep the night of William Baldwin’s funeral.

Doug expresses concern that a three month sentence isn’t “a truly effective or sensible sentence.”  I doubt it’s even in the ballpark of effective or sensible.  It’s the proverbial slap on the wrist, an extremely modest price to pay if one seeks to deter the beating of sex offenders by moms.  Clearly, it hasn’t done much to change Tammy’s mind, and knowing how protective I, as a parent, am with my children, it wouldn’t do much to me either if I felt the way she did.  Any half-decent parent will go to extreme lengths to protect their threatened child.  The problem is where the legitimate line of threat is to be drawn, and it seems clear that Tammy drew it in a place where few would, and no one should.

It’s hard to muster sympathy for a child molester, even when he’s paid his dues and caused no harm since.  It’s hard to avoid the sense of sympathy toward a parent who, even belatedly, perceived a threat to her child.  The ABC article doesn’t say what Baldwin did to merit the title “sex offender.”  But it’s enough in our society to simply have that title hung around his neck to make him unworthy of humanity.  It’s enough to render him unworthy of much protection from our institutions. 

And this apparently makes Baldwin, and anyone else forced to wear the title “sex offender” (many of whom have done little or nothing to deserve the moral culpability that goes along with this epithet) a lower breed of person, someone who can be beaten without serious consequence according to the sentence given Tammy Gibson. 

This is a dangerous and unacceptable message.  Tammy Gibson feels no remorse.  Another parent may well accept three months in jail for the chance to beat a sex offender.  The message to parents, and to sex offenders, is clear.  Sex offenders are fair targets and moms who beat them, or worse, deserve our understanding and sympathy. 

The story ends with one additional assertion that requires mention.  Tammy Gibson is not merely unremorseful, but sees herself as standing at the vanguard of parental righteousness.

Gibson said she hoped that the attention created by her case would lead to a change in the laws regarding released sex offenders.

“I would hope that me doing this and going to jail would change something, change some kind of law, change something where people like him can’t be standing around little kids you know what I mean?” Gibson said in her interview with KOMO-TV. “It’s not right, it’s not fair to the kids at all.”

In her mind, Tammy Gibson is the hero of this story, perhaps hoping for a law in her name entitling mothers to beat former sex offenders at will.  No, a three month sentence is not effective or sensible, and Tammy Gibson is not a hero.  Every sentence sends a message, and the message sent by this sentence is that sex offenders can be attacked with virtual impunity, even when they have done no harm.  This is a very dangerous message, and it was sent as clearly as possible.