noted map thief "entitled" to maps...

As most of us know, Edward Forbes Smiley III stole approximately 98 from some of the world's great libraries over a seven year period. There has been much debate about what was going on behind the thefts...what would lead one of the best known dealers to a path so base. The leading theories tended to revolve around "scarce good material" and debt excuses. According to an article published today, debt appears to be validated, but according to prosecutors his initial thefts were more out of pettiness, entitlement and resentment:

"He explained that his initial thefts were acting out of resentment towards persons at certain institutions that he believed had wronged him, individuals who he believed had slighted him or used certain of his research without accreditation," prosecutors wrote.
...
"Other thefts he explained resulted from some misguided sense of entitlement to the maps because he had, through collectors, provided better versions of the same map to the institution. He also acknowledged that stealing and selling the maps was profitable and he had mounting debts."

It's the "entitlement" argument that has me the most...er...baffled. The idea that, because he provided a "better" copy to an institution, he was somehow entitled to alternative copies (for free) shows absolutely stunning arrogance and, I think, desperate rationalization.

The article goes on to mention that the prosecution is not seeking a specific term, but noted that he should get credit for his assistance in recovering his stolen maps, stating: "From any perspective, the defendant has taken tremendous steps towards addressing the wrongs he committed," [emphasis mine]. I beg to differ. He stole maps, over a SEVEN year period, from some of the most significant public libraries in the world...libraries that remain "open" to preserve and provide access to great works. What he did was a profound betrayal of trust...of the institutions, of his clients and of the profession as a whole. I suggest that it also shows a profound *lack* of respect for the institutions, his clients and for the works themselves...of their significance and *why* the institutions sought to archive and protect them.

His "assistance", I believe, has absolutely *nothing* to do with "addressing the wrongs he committed." Rather, having been caught, he knew that rolling over would get him at least some degree of preferential treatment at sentencing. He knows that there is no downside to him in giving the prosecutors the information about what he stole and who he sold it to...in fact, a great upside for him. His clients, of years, are now compelled, ethically and legally, to return the stolen property without any likely recourse. True, the institutions will get most of their now damaged/impaired property back, which is a good thing. However, the one who benefits the most is Smiley himself...again. I think there is every indication that had he not been caught at Princeton, he would still be stealing maps today and onward.

He stole the maps (effectively from his clients) to serve his interests, he now "assists" in their return...again to serve his interests. Had he had an actual epiphany, turned himself in and, in doing so, layout a history of his thefts and where the maps ended up, *then* I would support lieniancy. I know I am a cynical old recovering attorney, but his efforts to undo the damage he has done should not garner him preferential treatment at sentencing. It is the *very* least to be expected from him. He is/was the worst kind of opportunistic, usurious predator. I am sorry for his clients, on both sides of the transactions and for the profession as a whole. I hope the judge sees through self-serving turn of heart. Sentencing is on September 27th. We shall see.