Fair and Equal Justice

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not quite certain what sort of discussion this might spark, if any at all.  Just felt that something like this should be put forth for consideration.  A serious flaw I suspect in the Justice System where the rich are slapped on the wrist for their crimes and the poor are beaten for theirs.

[Vekseid]

It's not just the sentencing. They give his name, date of birth, height and weight, along with a fancy 'print mug shot' button. The message is, to my ears, loud and clear.

And it isn't like this is an isolated example, either. All should be equal before the law.

[Envious]

What things should be and what things are happen to be vastly different.

[Brandon]

I remember reading something like this a few months ago and I had the immediate reaction of "thats messed up!". There are some issues that need to be pointed out. First among them is the crimes took place in separate states (neither being federal crimes and tried/punished under the same court). Individual state outlook may be one of the reasons for the punishments that were given (i.e. some states are much more hostile with repeat offenders). I dont think thats something we can be sure on one way or the other but it bears a mention.

If memory serves, in this case the homeless man was a repeat offender which as I mentioned is a huge factor in some states. Also I heard, but can not confirm, that the CEO's sentence was actually an illegal one (being by law to little for the crime)

I still think its pretty messed up. Not only did the homeless guy turn himself in and plead guilty (which should mean a significant sentence reduction) but the reasons why he did it were certainly desperate. In the case of the CEO he pleaded not guilty and was proven to be so (essentially wasting the courts time and the tax payers money) and I highly doubt he turned himself in (forcing the police to use time and resources that could have been put toward other cases).

Maybe Im just crazy...well ok we all know Im crazy but thats beside the point :P Anyway I think that the act of turning ones self into the police when you've done something wrong should cut a huge portion of time off a persons punishments. In practice pleading guilty is supposed to do the same but a judge can still give someone the maximum legal sentence if they want.

This may be a little off topic but I see these issues as to much of our cultures embrace of law and not enough of chaos. All societies need laws but our justice system is beginning to seem more like a new brand of tyranny then a system put in place to protect the people. It forces us to sacrifice far to much individuality and freedom for an illusion of efficiency and safety.

[Vekseid]

There's no mitigating factor, here. Three billion dollars is, roughly, the net product of several hundred people's lives. We don't think about it like that, and that degree of ruination is difficult to comprehend. But it should be treated accordingly.

[Brandon]

There's no mitigating factor, here. Three billion dollars is, roughly, the net product of several hundred people's lives. We don't think about it like that, and that degree of ruination is difficult to comprehend. But it should be treated accordingly.

Not for the CEO no, but there is for the homeless guy. Thats what Im saying, the CEO did everything wrong and should get a drasticly extended sentence but the homeless guy did everything right and got a heavy one. Thats not how things should work but its how they do work

Again, repeat offenses and varying state laws also play a part though. Unless its a federal crime being prosecuted its just inacurate to say that two men in two different states are being judged under the same law

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I don't know, at the end of the day one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. History should not have a sentence less than the theft of 100 dollars.  Just doesn't quite seem to equate for me.  I understand different states have different laws, but still.  3 Billion dollars versus 100 bucks.

[Scribbles]

I'm not sure of the state of prisons where he's going but is there a chance the judge saw jail as an opportunity for shelter, learning and food for the homeless guy? I'm desperately trying to find reason behind the madness...

[RubySlippers]

There is no reason there is one law for the privileged and one for the common people and its rarely fair.

[Zeitgeist]

I think reaction to this story is based on emotion alone and not logic. On the surface, complete with highlighted excerpts just in case you miss them, our eyes are drawn to what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice and fairness.

$3 Billion
40-month Sentence

A homeless man robbed a Louisiana bank and took a $100 bill.
The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

If you read the whole first half of the story, you'll see that the CEO was sentenced for his role in a $3 billion scheme.

One the story implies there were more people involved than just the man sentenced, and two is suggested 'for his role', that his role was only one part of a larger scheme. It doesn't specify what that role was.

Was it driving the get away car?

I think it's far too easy to peruse over this graphic, become indignant at the apparent injustice, and run outside waving a pitch forck calling for people's heads.

[Jude]

Rest of the article definitely makes the executive look better:

Allen’s lawyer argued for leniency on the theory that Allen was CEO in name only. The real mastermind was Farkas, who kept Allen out of the loop on much of the company’s day-to-day operations, according to trial testimony.

“Mr. Allen was not treated as a CEO. He did not function as a CEO,” said defense lawyer Stephen Graeff. “Sentence Mr. Allen the man, not Mr. Allen the title.”

But Brinkema said Allen’s title was significant, adding Allen’s reputation in the industry lent credibility to Taylor Bean that it otherwise would not have had. Even worse, Brinkema said, Allen had subordinates who were reporting the problems to Allen, but Allen left them to fend for themselves. One of those Taylor Bean employees, Sean Ragland, also was sentenced Friday to three months in prison and nine months of home detention for his role in the scheme.

“I can’t understand why in the world you didn’t stop it,” Brinkema told Allen.

Allen, for his part, apologized to his family and to “the entire financial community.”

By the time Allen became CEO in 2003, the fraud was already under way, and Taylor Bean owed more than $100 million to Colonial. Allen’s part in the schemes, came later, especially in the commercial paper loans from Deutsche bank and BNP Paribas that eventually grew to become the largest part of the fraud.

Ragland and Allen are the fifth and sixth persons to be sent to prison as part of the Taylor Bean-Colonial fraud, and investigators say the investigation is continuing. Sentences have ranged from three months to eight years.

All six received credit on their sentences for cooperating with investigators and testifying at Farkas’ trial.

“Mr. Allen’s sentence reflects his ultimate cooperation with this investigation, but also sends the message that unless executives expose and stop fraud when they first learn of it, they will be punished,” said Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Farkas is to be sentenced next week, and prosecutors have indicated they will seek a significantly longer sentence for Farkas than for his co-conspirators.

But the way the homeless man was treated still seems ridiculous -- I'll do a bit of reading and see if there were any omitted details.  I have a theory it has something to do with minimum sentencing rules for what was essentially a Bank Robbery.  Even though he only took 100 bucks, because of technicalities it was essentially equivalent to walking into a bank with a gun and wiping out the entire vault.

[Zeitgeist]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/mortgage-executive-receives-30-year-sentence/

The person seen as masterminding the $3 Billion fraud scheme was sentenced to 30 years in prison.



But it is far more emotionally convenient to juxtapose a homeless African-American man to an old, rich white man who was seen to have gotten off easy.

[Ironwolf85]

indeed it is, still... the homeless man should've been charged with less than bank robbery, maybe simple theft?
system ain't perfect but it often works. when it doesn't it brings angry cries of people.
still... at least the ringleader got put away for 30 years... the CEO is guilty of neglect like so many other leaders through the years. "don't worry boss, I got everything under control" when you hear that enough times, check the books.

[Jude]

Well, technically he did rob a bank.  He pretended to have a gun and forcibly took money.

I'm not sure if there's a good way to account for the motivations of the individual or the amount stolen in our laws so that what happened to this homeless man will never happen again, because unfortunately laws are made to be inelastic for a reason -- to eschew subjectivity in favor of blind application of the rules.

There are laws though, as we all know, which are fundamentally unfair.  Most people on this forum are against DOMA.  I think the War on Drugs is a fundamentally misguided effort that helps no one.  And of course there's the sad fact that this homeless man is probably going to have a better life in jail than he would living on the streets -- at least there he'll get three round meals, a place to sleep, and be relatively safe.

Our society is definitely not without its ills, and progress isn't an end goal as much as it is a gradual yet never-ending process.

Utopias don't and can't exist.

[Ironwolf85]

*gives Jude a cookie*

[meikle]

I think it's far too easy to peruse over this graphic, become indignant at the apparent injustice, and run outside waving a pitch forck calling for people's heads.

imprisoning someone for 15 years for stealing $100 is an injustice worthy of indignation all on its own.

i mean, just so we're clear: $100 is 13 hours worth of minimum wage labor.  15 years is 131,000 hours.

it would seriously be better for everyone in the entire world if they sentenced him to a shower and ten hours spent with a placement agency.  (except maybe for him; there's that guy who stole $1 from a bank so that he could get prison health care, after all...)

[LustfulLord2011]

I don't think that the issue of whether one of these men got overly hammered by the law, and one of them let off too leniently, is even relevant. I think that the issue is whether our legal system works at all. I, for one, think it is extremely overcomplicated and under-effective (I know that's not a word, but it's late and I am sleep deprived, please forgive me). Proposed for public review/ridicule/praise, Lustful's Amended Legal Code...

All monetary crimes shall be punished first by the confiscation and sale of the perpetrators property to cover the financial loss of the victim. In the event that this does not cover the financial loss of the perpetrator, the perpetrator shall have all wages garnished until such time as their debt is paid. In the instance that they do not have gainful employment, the perpetrator shall be forced into indentured servitude, the monetary proceeds of which shall be paid against their debt until it has been remedied.

All violent offenses shall be punished by death.

All sexual offenses shall be punished by castration, if the perpetrator is male, or the equivalent procedures, if female.

And that's it. Benefits include: No need for jails at ALL, no need for the taxes needed to support the jail system, and best of all, a drastic drop in violent and sexual crime rates, as there will be no such thing as a "repeat offender". I realize that my proposals may seem harsh, and they are meant to be, but I also believe that they are fair.

I also realize that some of what I said here may be taken as inflammatory. I hope that this is not the case, but if I have offended anyone with my proposal, please feel free to express your disapproval (respectfully, of course).

[Oniya]

All violent offenses shall be punished by death.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[Brandon]

I don't think that the issue of whether one of these men got overly hammered by the law, and one of them let off too leniently, is even relevant. I think that the issue is whether our legal system works at all. I, for one, think it is extremely overcomplicated and under-effective (I know that's not a word, but it's late and I am sleep deprived, please forgive me). Proposed for public review/ridicule/praise, Lustful's Amended Legal Code...

All monetary crimes shall be punished first by the confiscation and sale of the perpetrators property to cover the financial loss of the victim. In the event that this does not cover the financial loss of the perpetrator, the perpetrator shall have all wages garnished until such time as their debt is paid. In the instance that they do not have gainful employment, the perpetrator shall be forced into indentured servitude, the monetary proceeds of which shall be paid against their debt until it has been remedied.

All violent offenses shall be punished by death.

All sexual offenses shall be punished by castration, if the perpetrator is male, or the equivalent procedures, if female.

And that's it. Benefits include: No need for jails at ALL, no need for the taxes needed to support the jail system, and best of all, a drastic drop in violent and sexual crime rates, as there will be no such thing as a "repeat offender". I realize that my proposals may seem harsh, and they are meant to be, but I also believe that they are fair.

I also realize that some of what I said here may be taken as inflammatory. I hope that this is not the case, but if I have offended anyone with my proposal, please feel free to express your disapproval (respectfully, of course).

Sounds like another form of Tyranny to me. I dont think Ive ever heard of medeval justice being proposed as solutions to the problems of our current system. Usually they're used as "what not to do" guides

Think about it, you're proposing government sanctioned slavery, mutilation, and systematic murder despite any circumstances of the crimes in question. Im sorry but theres no way I would allow that.

[Oniya]

I should also point out that castration isn't necessarily effective as a preventative of sexually based crimes.  In cases where they've used 'chemical castration', the recidivists will simply use objects as penile surrogates.

[LustfulLord2011]

A valid point. Ok, then. Amendment to the code: repeat sexual offenses not involving traditional intercourse shall be counted as violent crimes, and the perpetrator subsequently put to death. I wasn't thinking it was a preventive in that sense, but more in the "you're not going to do this unless you are REALLY, truly, sociopathically detached, because nobody who isn't irremediably screwed up wants to suffer those consequences for ANYTHING." And I'm not talking methods like chemical castration. I'm talking hacksaws for men, cauterization irons for women, and network television to capture the moment.

[Oniya]

In that case, refer to my post regarding 'violent crimes'.  The justice system, being a creation of fallible beings, and conducted without benefit of omniscience, does sometimes give a false verdict.  As such, the existence of appeals (and by extension, jails) serves to minimize the consequences of Type I errors.  A man was released from jail just this past week after being held for 25 years for the murder of his wife.  DNA evidence proved conclusively that he didn't do it.  Under your system, an innocent man would have been killed immediately, and the real murderer would have gone free.

[LustfulLord2011]

I never claimed my system was perfect. Just simple, fair (at least, in terms of someone's social standing making no difference whatsoever in terms of the penalty assigned for crimes), and efficient. I would probably make the process for determining guilt a lot more rigorous too. For instance, mandating not one, but three cellular juries in a trial, none of which were allowed to communicate with eachother, who had to submit written verdicts rather than verbal ones, and all THREE must have, unanimously, come to a guilty verdict for someone to be sentenced. Also, no dismissals of evidence allowed. If someone has demonstrable evidence, whether for or against a plaintiff's guilt, they are not just free to present it, but should be mandated to, as the cost of a miscarriage of justice under my system would be grave indeed.

[Missy]

You cannot inspire morality by fear

[LustfulLord2011]

No, you can't. But morality is an artificial construct. You CAN, however, inspire obedience, which is the real point of the law, as our current system shows. Many of the laws in place now, and the penalties for breaking them, have nothing to do with the public good, and everything to do with enforcing compliance. I'm just willing to be a little more honest about my motives than your average politician.

[Bayushi]

No, you can't. But morality is an artificial construct. You CAN, however, inspire obedience, which is the real point of the law, as our current system shows. Many of the laws in place now, and the penalties for breaking them, have nothing to do with the public good, and everything to do with enforcing compliance. I'm just willing to be a little more honest about my motives than your average politician.

Creating or using laws to inspire "obedience" in the populace is tyranny.

Sorry, but your system is irredeemably flawed.

[Missy]

How can you form a fair and just system if morality is not the objective?

[Oniya]

Not to mention, obedience to authority has nothing to do with morality.  If the leader happens to be an immoral git, then obedience to that leader out of fear results in institutionalized immorality.  Ancient Rome was rife with examples.

[Missy]

Indeed. I also started thinking about Modern China. I mean, they basically have a government all about telling people what they can and can't do and jailing them if they disobey and we know because we hear at least one story a year about it.

People can't be bullied into doing things, they just don't follow that way.

It would last until people got tired of the bloodshed.

[Vekseid]

I think reaction to this story is based on emotion alone and not logic. On the surface, complete with highlighted excerpts just in case you miss them, our eyes are drawn to what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice and fairness.
...
I think it's far too easy to peruse over this graphic, become indignant at the apparent injustice, and run outside waving a pitch forck calling for people's heads.

No.

I can get in serious shit if I let Elliquiy's servers get compromised. It's my responsibility to keep this site secure. In first-world countries, it is not the rest of the Internet's responsibility to put up with people who don't have the knowhow to maintain and secure a webserver.

As I mentioned, three billion dollars is the life product of several hundred American's lives. You can put a year number on that. But you aren't convincing anyone with any sense that his negligence was less disruptive than the guy who turned himself in.

[LustfulLord2011]

How can you form a fair and just system if morality is not the objective?

Yes. It IS tyranny. Absolutely. My point is that tyranny, like it or not, is the modality, to one extent or another, of all extant governments world wide. The difference between my system and the current one... the ONLY difference... is that we aren't spending billions of dollars a year supporting a penal system that doesn't work. And I'm actually honest about my intent: Make restitution where it can be made, and remove the threat of repeat offenses permanently where it can't be made."

Is my system oppressive? Absolutely. Does it deny morality? Absolutely. But morality, like law itself, is something that we invented. We are the only species in the world that would, or could, even begin to accept the existence of such a concept, because it flies in the face of Nature's first law: Those who are fittest will survive, while the weak will be oppressed, or die. We have no intrinsic rights; we, like all other organisms, have the right to what we can take and hold against whoever or whatever else might want to take it from us. Nor is morality, or law for that matter, a natural occurrence. But even our own legal system does nothing to inspire morality. It just punishes offenders, and dictates many criminal acts that don't even belong on the books. The difference is, our current system punishes not only the offenders, but the rest of society at large, because we pay for the infrastructure that houses and feeds our criminal populace.

My system is indeed tyrannical. I merely postulate that, among all the systems in practice today, it is no less tyrannical, and a good deal more efficient and less costly, and also more democratic... I don't care if you are the President, or a homeless teenager, the penalty for any and all crimes will be the same: restitution where possible, prevention where possible, death when one of the other two cannot be achieved.

[TheGlyphstone]

Let them hate, so long as they fear?

[LustfulLord2011]

It's the same way with the system we have now... except that it costs a lot more and is a lot less efficient. If I saw a way to craft a system that promoted genuine justice, I would, but all of the greatest minds history has ever produced have, as yet, failed to come up with a truly fair system, and while I hold myself to be very intelligent and well educated, I do not hold myself to be exceptional. Since fairness and justice seem, for the time being, to be completely beyond the human capacity to achieve, why not make the injustice and unfairness run a little more smoothly and save a couple billion dollars a year into the bargain?

[Oniya]

My system is indeed tyrannical. I merely postulate that, among all the systems in practice today, it is no less tyrannical, and a good deal more efficient and less costly, and also more democratic... I don't care if you are the President, or a homeless teenager, the penalty for any and all crimes will be the same: restitution where possible, prevention where possible, death when one of the other two cannot be achieved.

Tyranny = more democratic?  I do not think that means what you think it means.

[LustfulLord2011]

Democratic, in the sense that neither class, nor race, nor gender, nor any other status that currently protects the guilty will shield anyone from the law for so much as a moment. If that word in this context bothers you as improper usage (as it is, to a small degree, to one way of thinking), then feel free to substitute it for "equal", "on the level", or some other such phrase implying that everyone gets the same treatment.

[Oniya]

So... kill 'em all and let $Deity sort them out?

[TheGlyphstone]

Considering this 'system' would, unless it undermined its own core principle of 'treat everyone the same', sentence the two guys who got in a barfight and the guy who shot up a preschool to the same death penalty (both violent crimes), sounds like it.

[LustfulLord2011]

Pretty much. Why should these criminals be our problem?

[meikle]

All violent offenses shall be punished by death.

The legal system is a lot more effective when it's a system that aims to dissuade people from committing crimes rather than a system that aims to punish people for crimes.

Let's say all violent offenses are punished by death.  I get drunk and punch someone.

Now I will resort to any means, violent or otherwise, to avoid being caught, because it will mean my death.  You are no longer dissuading me from doing crime, but encouraging me, by promising that you will murder me if I stop.

[LustfulLord2011]

Okay... That is a valid point. I will concede that you are right, in that instance. As stated, I never said my system was perfect... merely that it was more efficient, that it would result in equality before the law, and that it would save the money that America and other civilized nations spend on prison systems every year. I am still trying to figure out some proposed amendments that work preventatively, but the problem there is that violent people are going to commit acts of violence no matter whether it's legal or not. Same with sex offenders. I notice that there hasn't been much disagreement from people on the first clause in my abbreviated legal code... Do people generally feel that would be a fair penalty for property related crimes? Or have they just been so offended by my other proposals that they chose to focus there? Just curious.

[Oniya]

I think Brandon summed up the reaction to the property based crimes well enough.

Sounds like another form of Tyranny to me. I dont think Ive ever heard of medeval justice being proposed as solutions to the problems of our current system. Usually they're used as "what not to do" guides

Think about it, you're proposing government sanctioned slavery, mutilation, and systematic murder despite any circumstances of the crimes in question. Im sorry but theres no way I would allow that.

[Brandon]

Which by the way is expressly against the emancipation proclimation

[LustfulLord2011]

Fair enough. But I will point out once again that I never claimed my system was perfect... I merely claimed it would solve certain problems with our current system. That does NOT mean it would not create others... As I said, there has yet to be a truly positive legal code developed anywhere in the known world, throughout history, to my knowledge. If someone can point me to an example of a fair, efficient legal code that balances the needs of society against the rights of the accused, please do.

However, regarding that last comment, prisoners in the American penal system engage in forced labor all the time, the proceeds of which primarily go to the state. My proposal of indentured servitude as a means of repayment (when ALL other potential avenues are not viable) is not a new or radical idea, just couched in a new way. In fact, it is LESS destructive of people's rights, because it doesn't take away their freedom while they work to repay their debt; it merely forces them to work to repay it for a certain number of hours each day.

[Oniya]

Another reason that the property crime 'solution' may not be getting as much attention is that it's hardly as permanent as sterilization and death.  If someone is later found to have been innocent, they can be compensated in some way (at the very least, released from their indenture).  If you find out that the accused rapist didn't do it, what are you going to do?  Say 'Sorry for ripping your balls off with a hacksaw, no hard feelings, eh?'

[LustfulLord2011]

This part is true. I agree with my detractors on the point that my solutions are permanent, and irreversible, and that the consequences of a miscarriage of justice under my proposals would be truly horrible. Having agreed with that sentiment, however, I also put forward the premise that our current penal system, in it's own way, also does more harm than good, because it too is ineffective at prevention, and is also slow, and costly. Part of why I put forward my ideas was to see if others could, perhaps, come up with happy medium kinds of solutions. At one end we have the current system; grossly inefficient, costly to the public, and ineffective. On the other, we have mine: cheap, efficient, and equal, but flawed for the reasons people have given me. I was hoping to spark a debate that would produce some ideas that fell into neither camp, that might help bridge them a bit.

[Oniya]

Things that I think could be implemented in the current system: 

1)  institute occupational training and job placement, especially for those who commit property crimes.  Not all inmates will benefit from this, but the ones that steal for legitimate reasons of desperation would.  Job placement is important, lest they fall into the 'Jean Valjean' trap of wanting to redeem themselves but being unable to because no one will hire them.  For those that are not redeemable, the occupational training would allow them to pay for their incarceration.

2)  Don't make prison pleasant.  Minimal comforts should be allowed - about as comfortable as the cheapest, non-condemned hotel room on the market.  No cable (local channels are fine, maybe a radio).  No video games, but plenty of gym access.  Internet is a privilege and should be carefully monitored. 

3)  Unlimited access to educational material (year-old textbooks could be donated by universities, maybe in return for funding from the state - gods know that they make students buy new ones each year!)  This goes back a bit to number 1.  Books and movies that don't fall into that category would be privileges.

4)  Mandatory psychological and addiction counseling.  In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have actually declined since the early 1990s.

[LustfulLord2011]

That's true, and a lot of the violent and property related crimes committed now tie back to drugs somehow. The problem with the "war on drugs" is that the kinds of people who want to use drugs are going to whether it's legal or not, and the kinds of people who DON'T aren't suddenly going to hop on the bandwagon just because it's legal. The only honest difference that legalizing and controlling street drugs would make is that, rather than pissing away billions of dollars on a war that we can't win, and housing the criminals that result from the anti-drug legislation, the government would be MAKING a lot of money on taxing and regulating their production and sale. Oh, plus, if they were legal, there might actually be some quality control standards, which might help prevent some of the drug-related deaths in this country.

Regarding your other points, I could get behind those ideas. But what do you do with the genuine irremediable criminals? You can't let them run free, and jail is still an option that costs the taxpayers here, and around the world, way too much money every year.

[TheGlyphstone]

Under your proposal, though, there is no such thing as a 'redeemable' criminal, because everyone who commits those crimes is killed for them.

With the other reforms, jail wouldn't cost 'way too much money' anymore - especially drug legislation reform would vastly decrease the prison population. Repeat violent offenders - not even the people you want sentenced to death for their first violent crime, but the truly 'irredeemably' violent ones, are a tiny fraction of our prison population (though the most publicized and attention-getting). The government can well afford to shove them away in tiny concrete boxes for the duration of their natural lives.

[LustfulLord2011]

Yeah, that part is true. The changes in drug legislation alone would drastically reduce the cost to the public of our current penal system. Food for thought.

[Oniya]

Under your proposal, though, there is no such thing as a 'redeemable' criminal, because everyone who commits those crimes is killed for them.

With the other reforms, jail wouldn't cost 'way too much money' anymore - especially drug legislation reform would vastly decrease the prison population. Repeat violent offenders - not even the people you want sentenced to death for their first violent crime, but the truly 'irredeemably' violent ones, are a tiny fraction of our prison population (though the most publicized and attention-getting). The government can well afford to shove them away in tiny concrete boxes for the duration of their natural lives.

And under the first part of my proposal, they'd be shut in those little rooms with some kind of occupational training to offset their costs.  The ones that would be a burden would be the ones who were completely nonredeemable, and were also intent on not bettering themselves in any way.

[Zeitgeist]

No.

I can get in serious shit if I let Elliquiy's servers get compromised. It's my responsibility to keep this site secure. In first-world countries, it is not the rest of the Internet's responsibility to put up with people who don't have the knowhow to maintain and secure a webserver.

As I mentioned, three billion dollars is the life product of several hundred American's lives. You can put a year number on that. But you aren't convincing anyone with any sense that his negligence was less disruptive than the guy who turned himself in.

Roy Brown's story, and his sentencing is indeed troublesome. I'll grant you that. However the graphic as posted (I know that Pumpkin Seeds didn't put the collage together, I've seen it elsewhere), cherry picks two cases to highlight a contrast.

But as we know, the mastermind of the $3B fraud wasn't Paul R. Allen, it was someone else. And that person did receive a appropriate sentence. Thirty years in fact. Twice as much as what Roy Brown received.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/mortgage-executive-receives-30-year-sentence/

No, the point of the graphic as assembled is meant to chafe our sensibilities on race, and class.  It does this in an irresponsible manner by leaving out key details (see above).

Roy Brown's story, as it stands on its own is indeed troublesome. I suspect because it was a federal crime (bank robbery) he had limited options to plea bargain down. Also, we don't know what if any of his priors were.

[LustfulLord2011]

See now, in my book, the guy ripping off a hundred bucks would have been sentenced to a couple days of forced labor at a construction site, with his wages to be paid back to the bank. Instead, what we have is a man in jail for years, costing many times the hundred he originally stole to the taxpayers, and the bank is still technically out a hundred bucks. Plus, who knows? Maybe if he did a good job during his days of work, he might even get a job out of the deal, thus giving him the means to support himself.

[Vekseid]

Roy Brown's story, and his sentencing is indeed troublesome. I'll grant you that. However the graphic as posted (I know that Pumpkin Seeds didn't put the collage together, I've seen it elsewhere), cherry picks two cases to highlight a contrast.

But as we know, the mastermind of the $3B fraud wasn't Paul R. Allen, it was someone else. And that person did receive a appropriate sentence. Thirty years in fact. Twice as much as what Roy Brown received.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/mortgage-executive-receives-30-year-sentence/

No, the point of the graphic as assembled is meant to chafe our sensibilities on race, and class.  It does this in an irresponsible manner by leaving out key details (see above).

Roy Brown's story, as it stands on its own is indeed troublesome. I suspect because it was a federal crime (bank robbery) he had limited options to plea bargain down. Also, we don't know what if any of his priors were.

Dude, do you think 30 years is remotely appropriate either?

Imagine if someone destroyed not only everything you built, but also everything everyone you ever met built. This will probably include a few dozen millionaires.

Everything they've ever made, stolen or destroyed. Everyone you've met.

That's the level of economic disruption this guy caused. Is thirty years justice?

[Oniya]

See now, in my book, the guy ripping off a hundred bucks would have been sentenced to a couple days of forced labor at a construction site, with his wages to be paid back to the bank. Instead, what we have is a man in jail for years, costing many times the hundred he originally stole to the taxpayers, and the bank is still technically out a hundred bucks. Plus, who knows? Maybe if he did a good job during his days of work, he might even get a job out of the deal, thus giving him the means to support himself.

Actually, he brought the $100 back.  So, I agree, 'sentencing' him to some form of occupational training and job placement would benefit all parties.

[Zeitgeist]

Dude, do you think 30 years is remotely appropriate either?

Imagine if someone destroyed not only everything you built, but also everything everyone you ever met built. This will probably include a few dozen millionaires.

Everything they've ever made, stolen or destroyed. Everyone you've met.

That's the level of economic disruption this guy caused. Is thirty years justice?

I stand behind the gist of my reply. Roy Brown's story is indeed troublesome, but the graphic as presented is misleading. And it's intentionally misleading.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm with Zam here - while there is injustice all around here in numerous places, justice should be earned by open debate and facts, not intellectual dishonesty and emotion-mongering. The graphic is very much the latter.

[Hemingway]

Hello, debate.

It seems fairly clear to me that this Brown character did commit a fairly serious crime. I'm not sure if it's 15-years-in-prison serious. It's not really necessary to compare it to the other case, either. I mean, I hate seeing people get off easy because they're wealthy, or because they're politicians, or they're the police, or whatever - and that does happen - but it also highlights some deeper issues. I'm sure some people will question the honesty of his claims, but if he is to believed, then he was essentially driven to crime by sheer desperation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if ever a crime is justifiable, morally at least, it's in a situation like that. Of course he could have done things besides go into a bank and act like he had a gun, but his legal options were certainly limited. This idea that people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps is ... well, this is what it leads to.

I'm certain it would've cost less to somehow help this guy out than to keep him locked up for 15 years, too.

[Callie Del Noire]

You want to talk inequities. What about the ABUSE of the Sex Offender listings that is going on in the last few years.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/sex-offender-databases/

This one is about a guy who kept a minor hostage for a while after a soured drug deal went south. No sexual assault or such simply kept her as a hostage. Other cases of people going on the list for kidnapping (which is a whole different sort of crime..equally dire in my opinion)

Then you are getting more and more cases of MINORS being put on the registery for 'hooking up' like we did as kids. Consensual (that is.. both parties agreed) between two minors. Granted under the law they CAN'T consent, but explain to me how stimgatizing a kid and killing their chances for a normal life for the same sort of experimentation we did as kids is fair. (And some of them were only at '2nd base', so to speak)

[LustfulLord2011]

You want to talk inequities. What about the ABUSE of the Sex Offender listings that is going on in the last few years.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/sex-offender-databases/

This one is about a guy who kept a minor hostage for a while after a soured drug deal went south. No sexual assault or such simply kept her as a hostage. Other cases of people going on the list for kidnapping (which is a whole different sort of crime..equally dire in my opinion)

Then you are getting more and more cases of MINORS being put on the registery for 'hooking up' like we did as kids. Consensual (that is.. both parties agreed) between two minors. Granted under the law they CAN'T consent, but explain to me how stimgatizing a kid and killing their chances for a normal life for the same sort of experimentation we did as kids is fair. (And some of them were only at '2nd base', so to speak)

Please tell me that last paragraph is just your idea of a sick joke and that this kind of shit isn't really happening. I would feel morally obligated to start picketing and yelling the most obscenely filthy insults I could come up with on the lawns of the morons responsible.

[Oniya]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-03-kid-sex-offenders_N.htm

[TheGlyphstone]

Please tell me that last paragraph is just your idea of a sick joke and that this kind of shit isn't really happening. I would feel morally obligated to start picketing and yelling the most obscenely filthy insults I could come up with on the lawns of the morons responsible.

You've honestly never heard of Romeo + Juliet Laws? They're what's intended to fix that sort of thing.

[LustfulLord2011]

I would comment on this, but I don't feel I have the self control to keep myself from exploding so savagely they would be forced to ban me from the site. Have a good night, all... That's about as much of our legal system's complete and abject shamefulness as I can take for one night.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I am not certain how the article is making use of emotion mongering to drive forward a point.  Maybe the facts of the case are simply unfair and highlighting a flaw in the justice system.  A man that stole 100 dollars received 15 years in prison while a man took part in one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history received 3 years, not even the maximum mind.  The man that masterminded the fraud received 30 years.  Which means 100 dollars got the homeless man HALF the sentence of the man who stole billions.  The math does not quite work out.  Facts are simple that the man who participated in this crime got a much lighter sentence for something much more damaging than a man who did comparatively little. 

The two articles are from what was printed in a paper from two separate areas.  Someone just stuck them together. 

[LustfulLord2011]

So at least there is proposed legislation to try to mitigate these abominations. That's good.

[TheGlyphstone]

I am not certain how the article is making use of emotion mongering to drive forward a point.  Maybe the facts of the case are simply unfair and highlighting a flaw in the justice system.  A man that stole 100 dollars received 15 years in prison while a man took part in one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history received 3 years, not even the maximum mind.  The man that masterminded the fraud received 30 years.  Which means 100 dollars got the homeless man HALF the sentence of the man who stole billions.  The math does not quite work out.  Facts are simple that the man who participated in this crime got a much lighter sentence for something much more damaging than a man who did comparatively little. 

The two articles are from what was printed in a paper from two separate areas.  Someone just stuck them together.

That's what we/I meant. The articles are explanatory and at least full disclosing the facts, fairness aside - the graphic is what's 'emotion-mongering' by deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

So at least there is proposed legislation to try to mitigate these abominations. That's good.

Indeed. And if you do sign off for the night, go to bed with the thought that for any situation, particularly one as pervasive as this one, there is rarely if ever a 'simple fix' - anything that proposes to be so will likely just cause more problems. In the now-thoroughly-picked apart law code you had suggested at the very beginning of this, for example, those R+J teens would be having their naughty bits cut off for fooling around with each other, which I can't see anyone counting as 'fair'.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So if you have two articles that disclose the facts in a satisfactory fashion.  Then put those two fact sufficient articles together.  Suddenly they are misleading?  The graphic simple puts the two stories next to each other.

[LustfulLord2011]

I'd also redefine the whole law that way. Statutory rape is a RIDICULOUS concept in and of itself, at least, outside of certain obvious parameters. When I refer to sexual offenders, I'm not talking about consenting minors who decide to have a romp at prom. I'm talking about genuine rapists and molesters. That said, I understand what you are saying. My purpose was not to try and propose a perfect solution to our legal woes (I'm not even sure I could be convinced that there IS one), but rather, to come up with a diametrically opposed system, and to spark debate on the relative merits/demerits of various alternatives... a goal in which I believe I succeeded. Thank you all, by the way, for remaining respectful even in your disagreement. With such loaded topics (and me purposely proposing loaded solutions to incite discussion), it's easy to let emotions run high.

[LustfulLord2011]

So if you have two articles that disclose the facts in a satisfactory fashion.  Then put those two fact sufficient articles together.  Suddenly they are misleading?  The graphic simple puts the two stories next to each other.

The reason it becomes misleading is the same reason that a graph becomes misleading if you use any number but "zero" for the apex of the graph. It will still be honest data, but visually creates a contrast that doesn't necessarily exist. HOWEVER, in this instance, I do have to say that I fall pretty firmly on the side of those who think that (depending on your point of view) the homeless man got shafted or the white collar criminal got off too easy. Not for the reason that the white collar criminal's act was greater (I don't, after all, know EXACTLY what his role was, and therefore, what level of the total guilt for the act can be assigned to him), but because 100 dollars is simply not worth 15 years of someone's life in any way, by my estimation. Just my two cents on that.

[Jude]

The graphic puts the two stories together while omitting pieces of information that mitigate just how much of an abomination of justice this is.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who agrees with those decisions in their entirety by comparison, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who agrees that the truth is as bad as the graphic makes it out to be too.

[TheGlyphstone]

So if you have two articles that disclose the facts in a satisfactory fashion.  Then put those two fact sufficient articles together.  Suddenly they are misleading?  The graphic simple puts the two stories next to each other.

No, it's putting the first few paragraphs of each story, which also tend to be the most summarizing ones which leave out the key details we're highlighting.

For the CEO, that's two paragraphs of a 17-paragraph article - it's not until about 2/3rds of the way in that you learn what his actual role in the entire scheme was (defense says he was a patsy, prosecutors say he was sticking his head in the sand and ignoring the problems his underlings tried to bring up). For the bank robber, I can't actually find the 'real article', but the snippet doesn't mention stuff like his prior convictions, which would play a big role in said harsh sentencing...ever heard of the 3-strikes laws some states have, for instance?

[Zeitgeist]

So if you have two articles that disclose the facts in a satisfactory fashion.  Then put those two fact sufficient articles together.  Suddenly they are misleading?  The graphic simple puts the two stories next to each other.

With the rather obvious implication of comparing them, and inviting (or rather inciting) the person viewing/reading the representation to draw a conclusion, a predetermined conclusion, a conclusion the originator had already come to.

It wasn't by chance, mistake, or fate that Roy Brown was chosen because he was black, nor the other because he was white, nor that the two were separated by economic class.

Point is, each story stands on it's own. By representing them the way they were, together, the intention is to incite ill feelings between the races and economical classes.

Yes these things already exist with, or without the graphic. But in my opinion it is gratuitous to combine them, and oh so transparent.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The full page article presented in the post details that Allen tried to weasel out of responsibility for his part in the scheme by stating he was “not really the CEO.”  The article also states that he received “time served” for cooperating with the police.  Honestly the full article when compared to the homeless man’s article seems far worse than the graphic suggests.  The homeless man’s article was actually presented in its entirety.  There is no mention of a previous record in the article nor of him receiving any leniency for his actions.  I suppose we are free to assume in the case of the homeless man, but not in the case of the CEO.  Need to make sure all of Mr. Allen’s facts are presented so everyone can fully understand his side.

Also, people are not free to make the comparison between a crime committed by a black man to one committed by a white?  To my knowledge this discussion has not invoked the race card.  I might also state that you are assuming that Mr. Allen is white from the graphic.  Which is once more a humorous thing to notice.

[Brandon]

I would like to ask for those who would answer. What is, in your opinion, the appropriate prison sentance for the CEO? Were getting focused on the amount so Im curious how the amount stolen translates into prison time

[LustfulLord2011]

I would like to ask for those who would answer. What is, in your opinion, the appropriate prison sentance for the CEO? Were getting focused on the amount so Im curious how the amount stolen translates into prison time

First, is there anyone here who took the time to read the whole article and so knows what his role in the crime actually WAS? I wouldn't, myself, feel comfortable passing judgement that way until I had that piece of info, and while I will dig it up myself if I must, I am not going to if someone else already has an answer, LOL.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm not entirely sure either. Almost all of the articles I can find are copypastes of each other - the only detail different I could determine was that he (the CEO under discussion) pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, and one count of making false statements.


So, at minimum, he knew what was happening (the company selling the same mortgages to multiple sets of investors) to some degree, and either kept his mouth shut or actively lied to investigators sniffing around the mess before it imploded. Since the other article said the scheme was already in progress and underway when he came onboard, it smells more like he didn't want to upset the gravy train rather by whistleblowing, making him an accomplice to conspiracy.

[LustfulLord2011]

I don't know... I can't really grasp that level of theft. It really does boggle the mind, and to me, defy all rational suggestion for punishment, because anything I can think of would be too harsh, or not nearly harsh enough.

[TheGlyphstone]

Which is possibly why his defense lawyers are arguing he was just being used as a front-man while his underlings kept the details away from him so he couldn't rock the boat. Was he guilty of willful complicity? Was he just a moron who blew off his accountants when they insisted the books weren't adding up? Who's telling the truth? We can't really be certain.

For contrast, the guy at the top of the whole scheme was hit with 14 conspiracy charges and got 30 years in prison. And he knew what he was doing the whole way through, though I doubt he thought he'd actually get caught (obviously).

[LustfulLord2011]

Oh, well, let's be clear... For the top man, I would heartily recommend confiscation of all financial assets, life in prison, and at LEAST a five minute gangstomp from all the people who put their trust in him (no fatal wounds allowed).

[Callie Del Noire]

I have a LOT of misgivings on the lack of appeal on the Sex Offender's listing. Once you're on it.. you're.. to be crude about it.. totally fucked. You could have a completely overzealous DA out to win points for re-election.

I mean.. look at the way the DA went after the LaCross team at Duke, or putting a man in Jail for a decade for oral sex as a minor. (Wilson vs. State of Georgia).

There are people who merit being on the list but kids doing things like experimenting with sex aren't among them. Neither are assistant principals collecting evidence of students forwarding pictures of other students on their phone.

[LustfulLord2011]

I am sorry I doubted you. I just couldn't believe that, even in this country, things could have gotten so grossly fucked up as to permit that kind of legislation. I stand here, wiser and somewhat humbled by the sheer capacity our kind exhibits for such mindless stupidity it would make a slug look like a physicist by comparison.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am sorry I doubted you. I just couldn't believe that, even in this country, things could have gotten so grossly fucked up as to permit that kind of legislation. I stand here, wiser and somewhat humbled by the sheer capacity our kind exhibits for such mindless stupidity it would make a slug look like a physicist by comparison.

I had a law in the town I grew up in had an ordinance declaring snoring illegal if your neighbor could hear you.

Trust me.. legistlative stupidity goes all the way back to Ancient Rome and Greece.

[LustfulLord2011]

Yeah, but there's idiocy, and then there's "how the fuck did the moron who came up with this not die from sniffing too many Whippets?!?!?"

[TheGlyphstone]

Sometimes it's just the law of unintended consequences, or failing to write in exceptions that only become obvious after the fact - stuff like R+J cases, for instance, or petty criminals who mug three random people for their wallets and get sentenced to life without parole because of 'Three Strikes'.

[LustfulLord2011]

True. Still, the second these things were discovered, exceptions should have been written immediately and without quibbling.

[Anberlin]

This is precisely what Karl Marx was talking about when he exposed the conflict between the Capitalist class and the Working class. In reality the common man is always in conflict for his rights and freedom. Marxism reveals what true utopia is, the capitalists just deceive  the masses into thinking democracy is the solution for all conflict.

[LustfulLord2011]

The problem with socialism is that it flies in the face of human nature. It's a great philosophy, but that's all it can ever be... philosophy. Because without private wealth as a means of social stratification, there is no such thing as "status" in the sense we traditionally understand it... and all evidence seems to support the assertion that humans are inherently status seeking animals.

[Bayushi]

Sometimes it's just the law of unintended consequences, or failing to write in exceptions that only become obvious after the fact - stuff like R+J cases, for instance, or petty criminals who mug three random people for their wallets and get sentenced to life without parole because of 'Three Strikes'.

A California man was sentenced to life in prison after stealing golf clubs under Three Strikes.

and all evidence seems to support the assertion that humans are inherently status seeking animals.

Humans are social animals, and status is an integral part of social relations amongst humans.

I'm not sure how people can still think Marxism or Communism can work; what, people don't read history books any longer?

[LustfulLord2011]

I think that your assertion that status is an inherent part of being social among humans is correct. In fact, I think it's probably integral to being social AT ALL. All social animals that I know of stratify themselves in similar ways, just through different means.

[meikle]

True. Still, the second these things were discovered, exceptions should have been written immediately and without quibbling.

You can't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it.

[TheGlyphstone]

You can't be punished for something that wasn't illegal when you did it.

He's arguing for the other way around - it was illegal when they did it, but shouldn't have been (for them).

[LustfulLord2011]

Yes, Glyph is correct. I was arguing the point that the logical exceptions to those laws should have been implemented immediately as soon as they were discovered. I personally, except in clearly coercive cases, think that the statutory rape laws are certifiable horse manure anyway. By the time a person is in their teens, they have learned enough to give informed consent. Our extensive sex education programs have insured that. Or at least, consent as informed as the average adult. More so, in some cases. There are still people my age, and older, out there who have no CLUE as to how sex, reproduction, and STIs work, and yet we decide, arbitrarily, that they are somehow competent to make decisions and give consent regarding their own sexual conduct, while well educated young men and women who know what they are doing are still, in many places, refused access to condoms and birth control without parental consent. It's patent insanity, but hey, that's the way it is.

[Oniya]

Unfortunately, there still exist regions in this country where the 'extensive' sex education program consists of 'You're not old enough.  Don't do it.  Class dismissed.'  Even when I was in 8th grade, your parents had to sign a permission slip for you to learn about puberty.  My parents signed, but I always sort of wondered at the time what would happen if they didn't.

Also, the brain is still developing during the teens - particularly the parts that govern decision-making.  This is why we even have a 'juvenile system' for offenders 17 and under.  Yes, the 17/18 cut off is fairly arbitrary, but it's there as a compromise to recognize that we have a longer developmental period than most mammals.

[LustfulLord2011]

Okay, that's true. In fact, as much a minority as they are, the regions you are talking about are large enough to cause real concern. Still, there is ZERO excuse for continued ignorance anywhere, because anywhere in this country, and most places around the world, there is ready information outside of the school system available even to minors about these sorts of issues. I do see your point, but then again, a lot of teens I know are more responsible and capable of making rational, well informed decisions on a LOT of topics than people my own age, or even older. I just think that the concept of "informed consent" needs to be redefined in a more sensible fashion. I haven't got a productive suggestion on HOW, unfortunately... But I am hoping that someday, someone out there will come up with one.

[Caehlim]

It's not the prison sentence that concerns me. I'm more concerned by the fact that he couldn't get $100 to stay at a detox center. Something's wrong with the welfare system there.

Also, focusing on the amount of money stolen is missing the point. The bank teller was threatened with what she likely believed was a legitimate threat of murder.

The bank is probably insured against theft. The insurance company uses combined group risk and a statistically calculated rate to ensure that they always make a profit. Whether you take $100 or $10,000 no one actually loses any money. (So long as there are other people robbing banks at a statistically normal rate).

[LustfulLord2011]

That's definitely the case, but insurance companies actually have a zero payout goal: any time they have to pay any money, they count it as a loss. Shrunk profits is the same as shrunk capital, from their perspective, and in certain ways, it's true. There's a difference between "a profit", "a big profit" and "an acceptable profit" (notice I placed that last one AFTER the first two... that's how it's thought of by insurance companies... if their profits aren't sinfully large, they are inadequate). If profit levels aren't at least "acceptable", something went wrong somewhere.