To declare biases, I remind readers that I've been ambivalent about Nixon - sceptical of his Vietnam policy which unnecessarily prolonged that war, yet admiring of his flexibility in affairs foreign and domestic, his opening of US relations with China, his anti-ballistic missile treaty with the Soviets.
In domestic matters, this conservative President passed the Clean Air Act and set up the Environmental Protection Agency, passed occupational safety legislation, helped to integrate schools and proposed medical reform that was the forerunner of Obamacare.
I have never supported Banks in any particular.
Nixon, for all his accomplishments, was a man without scruples when it came to political battle, willing to smear opponents and use any tactic to win election. That was his ultimate undoing.
A staunch Nixon supporter with whom I discussed his downfall at the time, said: "You live by the sword, you die by the sword."
That's where the serious resemblances begin and end. Banks was described in the New Zealand Herald in this way: "He played hardball right from the start - attacking welfare beneficiaries, soft sentencing for violent crime and funding for disabled lesbians and other minority groups."
He also berated "troublemakers" and "communists" in the trade union movement over disputes at Marsden Point refinery. In opposition in 1986, Banks called for an immediate election over Labour's anti-nuclear policy.
On June 5, Judge Wylie of Auckland's High Court found Banks guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of the Electoral Act of 1993, falsely filing an electoral report by failing to disclose Kim Dotcom's $50,000 contribution to his Auckland mayoralty campaign of 2010. The prescribed penalty for such offence is up to two years' prison and a $100,000 fine.
Showing no remorse, Banks has publicly refused to accept the verdict. He claims innocence despite Judge Wylie's guilty finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
Banks plans to ask at sentencing on August 1 to be discharged without conviction. That such a crime - a betrayal of public trust and a cover-up - may possibly lead to no conviction boggles the mind.
I'm not as prone as has been Banks and his party to seek draconian punishment but one important rationale for criminal punishment is the deterrence of wrongdoing by others of similar inclination.
Too often the justice system punishes with severity offenders who are poor and under-educated and gives the privileged criminal a wrist slap. If anyone needs to provide an example of a justice that is even-handed and impartial, it is John Banks. He has asked for no less for others.
What New Zealand needs is an impeachment/recall mechanism to get rid of those falsely elected and unworthy to govern.
What John Banks needs is a small supporting role in "Orange is the New Black" - about six months' worth would do nicely. Plus the $100,000.
What justice needs is a strong signal of deterrence to those who might otherwise follow Banks' example.
Jay Kuten is an American-trained forensic psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand for the fly fishing. He spent 40 years comforting the afflicted and intends to spend the rest afflicting the comfortable.
