Everything about this developing story seems to be horribly wrong.
We know that dear Eldrick was found asleep and subsequently incoherent in his vehicle a few months ago. It was damaged, had two flat tires, but glory be, nobody seems to know, or wants to, how that could have come about.
Well OK, he had no alcohol in his system. But by his own admission was maxed out on pain killers and anti-depressants. In other words, a menace on the highway. Driving under the influence. Big time.
As the story goes, only a not guilty plea can be entered without the defendant, Tiger, being present in the court room. So said his attorney to the judge.
But wait a second. In the same paragraph, the prosecutor said Tiger had already agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of reckless driving. So which is it?
At that, presto, Tiger went off into rehab somewhere. Again. No doubt, this was another celebrity justice condition of his plea. Go into a country club facility, behave yourself for a month or two, and everything will be just fine.
Worse, he'll only be fined a couple hundred bucks, chump change, be on joke probation for a short time, and have his "record" completely cleared if he can act like an upright citizen for a few months.
This is wrong, though the prosecutor, as if she's fooling anybody, stated that Woods isn't being treated any different than a common citizen would be.
Hogwash. The average John or Jane Doe, under the exact same conditions, would not, repeat NOT be afforded the same VIP treatment Eldrick is about to receive. Even if a first time offender, their record would be forever and the system would come down a lot harder on them.
A few hours of community service? That's a joke as well. Tiger can probably spend them giving bimbos putting lessons at one of Trump's fancy golf resorts. Anybody else would likely have to pick up trash on the side of interstates somewhere. Or mow lawns at churches. Can you picture Eldrick pushing a mower around? Not me. Ain't gonna happen.
And there's the thing. The penalty should be commensurate with the financial status of the perpetrator.
Sure, a couple hundred dollar fine would hurt your average minimum wage earner, or someone unemployed trying to barely scrape by.
But it's a joke to a guy worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Want to get his attention? Hit the almost billionaire with a $100,000,000 fine, make him "drop" every other day or so like anybody else would have to, and no, his record NEVER goes away. Good enough for the common man/woman -- good enough for Eldrick.
Anybody that thinks the double standard doesn't still exist in a large way -- is crazy. A rich person committing the exact same crime as a poor person might get sent off to a Club Fed somewhere. You know, tennis courts, pools, saunas, hot tubs, masseuses, gourmet food, and definitely no bars.
The poor guy will get thrown in a slammer. Brutal guards, a community shower every three days or so, good luck with that, and trying to merely survive among the animals that would just as soon stab or rape him as an every day occurrence. This, while having to eat food most dogs would turn their noses up at, and bars everywhere.
Would I wish harm to come to poor Eldrick? Of course not. He made a mistake and should pay for it.
Yet the punishment should not only fit the crime, but also be tailored to the ability to pay.
I mean, c'mon. If the Prez, a multi-billionaire, is eventually found guilty of colluding with the Russians to fix the election last fall, do you really think fining him a few hundred bucks, clearing his record if he miraculously behaves himself for a few months, and doesn't otherwise wreak havoc during any probationary period would get his attention?