Featured Post from University of Massachusetts Amherst

For Trump’s Perceived Enemies, the Process may be the Punishment

by Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Oct 8, 2025

5 min

Paul M. Collins, Jr.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


UMass Amherst legal scholar Paul Collins explains how the criminal justice process can punish people even if they are never convicted, from legal fees to lost time and stress.


Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to two criminal charges in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Oct. 8, 2025. The charges allege that Comey lied to Congress in September 2020 when he stood by earlier testimony that he did not authorize a leak of an FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton.


Numerous legal commentators on both the left and right have argued that Comey’s indictment is little more than the Trump administration seeking vengeance on one of the president’s perceived enemies. They allege that the president has it out for Comey, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and was fired by Trump in 2017.


The president’s own words support the idea that the Trump administration is targeting Comey. In a social media post on Sept. 20, 2025, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to move forward with prosecutions against Comey, Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James: “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. …JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”


If the case against Comey is exceedingly weak – and little more than a political prosecution – then, in my view as a scholar of the U.S. legal system, it should result in the dismissal of charges by the judge or a not guilty verdict by the jury.


But even when an individual is not convicted, the process of defending against charges can itself be a form of punishment, as renowned legal scholar Malcolm Feeley pointed out almost 50 years ago.


Here’s how the criminal justice process punishes even innocent people.


The criminal justice process


The criminal justice process is complex.


After a grand jury returns an indictment at the request of a prosecutor, the accused appears in court for their arraignment. They are informed of the charges against them and typically enter a plea.


During what’s called “discovery,” the prosecution and defense investigate the evidence the other side plans to rely on. There are also pretrial motions in which the parties ask judges to dismiss charges and accept or exclude evidence.


The defense and prosecution may also meet to discuss a plea bargain, wherein the accused may plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or reduced charges.


If there is no plea bargain, then the case moves to trial, which is itself a complicated process. If a defendant is found guilty, they can mount an appeal to higher courts in an attempt to have their conviction overturned.


To help navigate this process, criminal defendants typically hire a lawyer.


And good lawyers don’t come cheap.


Money and time


Indigent defendants, who do not have the financial resources to pay their own legal fees, can rely on public defenders paid for by the government.


But individuals who can afford to pay for their own lawyer face a substantial financial burden for attorney services and court fees. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can charge more than US$1,000 per hour, with fees quickly adding up. This means that mounting a legal defense can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.


On top of this, it takes a great deal of time to prepare for a criminal case. While lawyers and their staff do much of the legwork for trial preparation, a client works with their attorneys to help formulate a defense.


As a result, criminal defendants lose one of the most precious commodities in the world: their time.


And this time can come at a tangible cost in the form of lost wages, which harms their day-to-day lives. Put simply, every hour spent preparing for trial is an hour defendants could spend working or enjoying their lives.


Stress and embarrassment


It’s not pleasant being charged with a crime.


The criminal process, which typically lasts months, takes a toll on one’s mental health. This is largely driven by the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of a criminal trial and the possibility of losing one’s freedom if convicted.


In addition, there is a social stigma that comes with being accused of a crime. This can result in reputational damage, anxiety and embarrassment.


The Trump administration appears to recognize this reality.


Several media outlets have reported that FBI leadership had planned a public perp walk for Comey.


According to a CBS News report, this was to have included “‘large, beefy’ agents … ‘in full kit,’ including Kevlar vests and exterior wear emblazoned with the FBI logo.” Apparently, the plan was aborted after several FBI supervisors refused to cooperate, viewing it as inappropriate. One agent was disciplined for insubordination after refusing to go along with the plan to embarrass Comey in this way.


Not all criminal defendants suffer the same


The extent to which criminal defendants experience the criminal justice process as a form of punishment varies from person to person.


For high-status people like Comey, lost wages and attorneys’ and court fees may not be that big of a deal.


But these costs may be incredibly significant for other people who have been, or are likely to be, targeted by the Trump administration.


The high costs of lawyers’ fees are well known to the president. For instance, his political action committee spent millions of dollars on attorneys’ fees in an unsuccessful effort to defend Trump from criminal charges in New York.


In addition, people no doubt experience the psychological stress and stigma of a possible criminal conviction differently. But regardless of one’s wealth, the lost time spent preparing a criminal defense is something that cannot be replaced.


The recognition that the criminal process is itself a form of punishment is one of the reasons that the Department of Justice has maintained independence from the president. By violating the tradition of staying out of politics, the Justice Department in the Trump administration has opened the door for the president to seek retribution on his perceived political enemies.


The mere act of putting them through the criminal process ensures that they suffer, regardless of their guilt or innocence.


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.



Connect with:
Paul M. Collins, Jr.

Paul M. Collins, Jr.

Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science

Paul Collins' research focuses on bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges and social movement litigation.

Bias in Judicial AppointmentsJudicial AppointmentsPublic LawInequality in the Legal SystemAmerican Politics
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Is Government Corruption Becoming a Defining Issue in the Midterm Elections? featured image

2 min

Is Government Corruption Becoming a Defining Issue in the Midterm Elections?

With the U.S. midterm elections just days away, concerns about government corruption are emerging as an important issue for voters, raising questions about how Americans define corruption, whom they hold responsible and how those perceptions could influence their decisions at the ballot box. In an Oct. 26 interview featured on NPR's All Things Considered, Ray La Raja, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll, discussed growing public concern about corruption and the competing political narratives surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to combat fraud. The segment, The Trump Administration Is Taking on Fraud Ahead of the Midterm Elections, reported by NPR's Emily Feng, examined President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance's efforts to make government fraud and abuse a central policy focus ahead of the elections. La Raja, who surveyed Americans about corruption in September, found widespread concern about the issue, consistent with other national polling showing that nearly nine in ten Americans are worried about government corruption. "I believe this is pretty much off the charts," La Raja told NPR, emphasizing the extent of public concern. He also highlighted the connection between corruption and the economic issues that traditionally motivate voters."But it's especially powerful when people are already upset about the issue that usually motivates voters, and that's the economy." View his profile His research reveals important differences in how Democrats and Republicans perceive the problem. While Democrats overwhelmingly identify the presidency as a source of corruption, Republicans tend to view corruption as a more systemic problem involving government bureaucracy and fraudulent claims against federal programs. His research offers valuable insight into how political messaging, public trust, economic anxiety and partisan perceptions intersect during a consequential election. An expert in American politics, elections, polling, political parties, campaign finance and political reform, La Raja brings extensive research experience to questions about voter attitudes, democratic accountability and the forces influencing political participation. With the midterm elections approaching on Tuesday, Nov. 3, Ray La Raja is available to speak with journalists seeking expert analysis of government corruption, voter concerns, political messaging, public opinion and the issues shaping the 2026 elections. To arrange an interview with La Raja, click on his ExpertFile profile below.

Expert Insight: Tariff Turmoil Is Changing How Businesses Price Their Products featured image

2 min

Expert Insight: Tariff Turmoil Is Changing How Businesses Price Their Products

Tariffs are no longer simply a trade policy issue. They are becoming a significant challenge for businesses trying to manage costs, protect profits and remain competitive in an increasingly unpredictable global marketplace. A recent Reuters Plus feature, Why Tariff Volatility Makes Pricing a Forever Process, produced for global consultancy Simon-Kucher, examines how rapidly changing tariffs are forcing companies to continuously reassess their pricing strategies and supply chains. Among the experts featured is Anna Nagurney, Eugene M. Isenberg Chair in Integrative Studies at the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. View her profile Nagurney, an internationally recognized expert in supply chain networks and disruption management, points to the extraordinary pace of trade policy changes. She estimates that U.S. tariff regulations changed approximately 50 times during 2025, creating uncertainty for manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. "The speed and uncertainty created a great deal of challenges for manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and, of course, consumers." Why Even Domestic Businesses Are Vulnerable One of the article's central messages is that businesses do not have to import products directly to feel the impact of tariffs. Higher costs can spread throughout interconnected supply chains, affecting suppliers, transportation networks and ultimately consumers. Nagurney emphasizes the importance of viewing supply chains as networks rather than simple, linear systems. By identifying critical suppliers, examining vulnerabilities and preparing for potential disruptions, businesses can make better decisions before costs escalate. She also cautions that smaller companies may struggle to absorb tariff-related increases without jeopardizing their financial stability. As businesses face continued uncertainty, Nagurney can provide valuable perspective on how tariffs influence supply chains, consumer prices, business competitiveness and the broader economy. An experienced commentator on global supply chain disruptions, Nagurney has provided analysis to major news organizations, including The New York Times, Associated Press, NPR, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The Wall Street Journal. If you're interested in speaking with Anna Nagurney about tariffs, supply chain disruptions, pricing pressures, international trade and economic uncertainty, simply click on her profile to arrange an interview today.

Are Small-Dollar Political Donations Making American Politics More Divisive? featured image

2 min

Are Small-Dollar Political Donations Making American Politics More Divisive?

Small-dollar political donations have long been celebrated as a way to reduce the influence of wealthy contributors and give ordinary Americans a greater voice in elections. But new research suggests that the growing influence of these donors may also be contributing to political polarization and rewarding candidates who generate attention rather than build consensus. In an article published in The Atlantic, titled Small-Dollar Campaign Donors Are Hurting the Political System, journalist Idrees Kahloon examines how the explosion of grassroots political fundraising has changed American campaigns, drawing attention to research challenging the assumption that small donations necessarily produce healthier democratic outcomes. Among the researchers examining this trend is Ray La Raja, professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. View his profile La Raja is co-author, with Zachary Albert of Brandeis University, of the 2026 book Small Donors in US Politics: Myth and Reality, which examines who contributes to political campaigns, what motivates their donations and how their growing influence affects elections and political representation. Their research finds that small-dollar donors are often more politically engaged, more partisan and more ideologically committed than the average voter. While these contributions can broaden participation in campaign financing, they can also encourage candidates to pursue national attention and emotionally charged fundraising appeals rather than focus on local concerns or legislative compromise. The findings raise important questions about whether the growing influence of small donors is strengthening political representation or creating new incentives for polarization. The issue is particularly relevant ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as candidates and political parties compete for campaign contributions in an increasingly nationalized fundraising environment. La Raja's work also examines the role of political parties in campaign finance and whether reforms designed to reduce the influence of large donors have produced unintended consequences. With campaign fundraising, political polarization and democratic accountability increasingly connected, La Raja offers journalists a research-based perspective on one of the less understood forces shaping American elections. If you're interested in speaking with Ray La Raja about campaign finance, small-dollar political donations, political polarization, election reform and the influence of money on American democracy, simply click on his profile to arrange an interview today.

View all posts
Powered by