Editorial: Six months in prison is better than nothing for former L.A. Sheriff Lee Baca

Having rejected the plea deal proposed for former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca because it would not impose enough prison time, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson may paradoxically give Baca a way to avoid spending any time at all behind bars.

Baca had agreed to plead guilty to lying to federal investigators in exchange for a sentence of no more than six months in prison. But on Monday, Anderson said the deal was too lenient for such a serious offense, leaving Baca to decide whether to withdraw his guilty plea or accept the punishment that Anderson believes more appropriate, up to a maximum of five years.

Six months does seem a little light for trying to thwart a federal investigation. It also seems like a slap on the wrist compared with the punishment that Baca’s No. 2 — former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka — received last month when he was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Tanaka encouraged the culture of violence rife in the department and even participated in what some describe as a deputy gang that abused and mistreated the communities they patrolled and the people they jailed.

True, Tanaka directed the scheme to hide an informant from FBI agents who were investigating allegations of brutality and misconduct in the county jails. But Baca was Tanaka’s boss. And no matter how detached he may have been, Baca was in charge, elected again and again by voters to run the Sheriff’s Department. Furthermore, Baca knew about the obstruction and lied about it to the FBI. Though he may not have been under oath at the time, he clearly intended to block the federal investigation. That’s a serious offense by one of the country’s most powerful lawmen.

So, six months? Sure, a longer sentence might send a stronger message to police officials that they aren’t exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us. But it is no small thing considering how rare it is for people in uniform to be held criminally accountable for misuse of power. Besides, six months in prison sends a better message than zero months.

And that’s within the realm of possibility now that the judge has reopened a chapter we all thought was well and done. Baca could agree to accept the judge’s terms. More likely, he could withdraw his plea and seek a new one from prosecutors that would require a limited amount of additional prison time in the hope that Anderson would accept it. Or he could go to trial and try his luck with a jury.

It is also possible that this chapter might not end at all in the foreseeable future. Baca is 74 and in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Would he even be competent to stand trial in a few months or a year? If not, that would be the end of it, because the condition has no cure and gets progressively worse.

That would be the worst possible outcome. Baca had so much power and he abused it. And if he can’t be sent to prison — for six months or 60 — then he’ll never be held responsible.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook