Article: Jimmy Lerner
Essay Preview: Article: Jimmy Lerner
Report this essay
On April 8, 2002, staff writer Linda Davis published an article in the Contra Costa Times about a man convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The article was titled Addict, Convict, Author, and focused on a former California resident, Jimmy Lerner. A thorough review of the article raises many moral and ethical questions about the individual, the legal system and the media. The nature of the crime and events leading up to Jimmy Lerners minor celebrity status leaves one to believe criminals should not profit from his crime, nor should they be given recognition as a celebrity. This research paper will reveal contradictory statements, and raise question or doubt about the conviction, the sentence served and Lerners potential mental state to support the belief that criminals should not reap any rewards from his or her crime.
Jimmy Lerner is a shrewd individual who managed to profit from his ability to exploit the system by lying and manipulating people. His background is impressive; having an MBA and a successful 18 year career at Pacific Bell as a marketing executive. At the time of his heinous crime, Jimmy Lerner was a middle aged man, married with two daughters, living in an upscale community outside San Francisco. This was a man living the American dream but his addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling brought that way of life to an end.
In November 1997 Jimmy Lerner killed a friend, Mark Slavin, during a weekend of drinking, drugs and gambling. On that fateful weekend, Jimmy Lerner beat and strangled Mark Slavin with a belt and plastic bag. When Jimmy Lerner called 911 he claimed to have killed Mark Slavin in self defense, yet he exhibited no self defense wounds from the knife wielding victim. The only indication of conflict on Lerners body was his swollen hands from beating and strangling Mark Slavin. Jimmy Lerner had a great deal to lose if he was convicted of charges beyond self defense.
Jimmy Lerner was a desperate man attempting to map out a plan to keep himself from being convicted of pre-meditated murder, a conviction that could carry a sentence of life imprisonment or worse. He had a quick mind and the on-the-job training he received from Pacific Bell gave him the tools to build a rapport with key stakeholders (jurors) and know how to mirror or echo the behaviors and speech patterns of people. The skill set he gained from the job seminars prepared this shrewd man to develop a strategy of lying and manipulation to minimize the outcome of his conviction. This was an educated man possessing the skills to exploit the system and coerce or lie to people for his benefit.
Reading and comparing media articles, interviews and other records reveal numerous incidents of his lying and manipulating ways to position himself as the victim and get the sympathy of the media, associates and onlookers. In court he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and showed sincere remorse for his actions in self defense. Not surprising, his sentence was limited to serve two to twelve years in prison with the opportunity for parole. How does a man come away with such a sentence after beating and strangling another person with- their own hands, especially considering the fact that drugs and money were involved? In a television interview after his release he did not express similar remorse.
If Mark Slavin was a friend, even under the influence of drugs and alcohol, why would Lerner have exerted the energy to kill him rather than disarm him of a pocket knife when he had control of the situation? Lerner is liar; he wanted Mark Slavin dead for other reasons. In Lerners book he refers to Mark Slavin as a “monster” who was a pathological liar and obsessed with child pornography. Perhaps Lerner was the “monster” who obsessed over child pornography and Slavin intended to use his knowledge of these shortcomings to blackmail him. Lerners motive for killing Slavin may have been to prevent him from exposing these undesirable traits to his family and employer. Mark Slavin may have been attempting to blackmail Lerner. After all, Jimmy Lerner was a successful marketing executive living the American dream in an upscale community outside the Bay Area.
Numerous contradictions exist in Lerners statements to authorities and the media. In one account Lerner told authorities that he killed Slavin in self defense as they quarreled over money and drugs. In another statement he claimed self defense because Slavin threatened his two daughters. How can a claim of self defense be legitimate unless his daughters were present at the time of the incident? Records do not indicate the daughters accompanied Lerner and Slavin during this weekend excursion. Another possibility is that Mark Slavin threatened the daughters in a previous incident and Lerner used this weekend to retaliate. In this scenario the outcome of the court ruling may have been pre-meditated murder.
Probably the best example of Lerners lying and exploiting skills was his claim of being locked up with murderers and hard core criminals that carried shivs (handmade knife) and would not think twice about using the weapon. His surviving the wrath of big, burly skinheads, with swastika tattoos is believable if a prisoner is placed in a maximum security unit. Nevada State prison has three units for the general population.
The first level of jail is called the maximum lockup and condemned mens unit. This section is reserved for the hardcore prisoners. The second level of jail is referred to as the minimum custody unit. This area is used for prisoners that present little, if any, threat to other inmates. The last level of jail is the protective segregation area used to house inmates that have exhibited violent behavior in prison. Based upon Lerners claims one would believe he was housed in the maximum lockup and condemned mens unit. Nevada State Prison records for Jimmy Lerner reveal he was housed in the minimum custody unit.
Jimmy Lerner is a man who knows how to lie, manipulate and exploit the system in an effort to obtain sympathy, attention and money. His skills have paid off as he writes books in which he admittedly alters the facts of his crime to place himself in the role of the poor victim. This raises another moral and ethical issue that begs the question why criminals are permitted in some states to benefit from their crimes.
Lerner, the well educated, quick minded yuppie has shown that the system can be manipulated. A person with a good job, money, and education can beat the system. The plea bargain system is set up for two reasons. To help the prosecutor get a confession on a case they can not win in court, and to help the “system” because we as Americans do not have room in our jails, or the time and money it takes to go to trail. The plea bargain system creates injustice,