40 months for stealing $3 Billion, 15 years for stealing $100

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrassScorpion**

This is quite representative of the huge inequities in our justice system and well illustrates why some things desperately need to change. A hungry homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100 to try and stay in detox after he returned the money. A CEO who defrauded people out of $3 billion gets a tiny fraction of that. Disgusting.

**CT GAMER**

Totally agree, but I fear nothing productive will come out of disussing this HERE.

The same regulars will take their entrenched political/moral positions and fling barbs, post memes, and snipe the other side until a mod locks it...

**Frazzled**

BrassScorpion wrote:This is quite representative of the huge inequities in our justice system and well illustrates why somethings desperately need to change. A hungry homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100 to try and stay in detox after he returned the money. A CEO who defrauded people out of $3 billion gets a tiny fraction of that. Disgusting.

I'm getting the red triangle of destiny. I'm betting the homeless guy robbed someone correct, and this was a third or thereafter offense. Works for me.

For the CEO, agreed. Bring forth the gallows.

**sarpedons-right-hand**

I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

**Frazzled**

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.

Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.

**BrassScorpion**

More justice problems, the worst kind because they are often for the innocent.

The Problem With Pleas
October 31, 2011, 3:45 pm ET by Gretchen Gavett

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. But how do you evaluate fairness when more than 90 percent of criminal cases never even make it in front of a judge or jury?

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on whether two defendants who did not take plea deals were denied effective council, but as NPR’s Nina Totenberg explains, if the court comes to this conclusion, it also has to decide what to do about it:

Should the defendant have a second chance at the plea offer? Do courts have the power to order that sort of remedy? Or should the defendant be restored to his original place in the system, before a trial and before a plea offer was made?

Our 2004 film The Plea tells the story of how pervasive plea deals are, and how they’re often misused. While proponents say the agreements give defendants options, plea bargaining is more often than not used to save money and time. The criminal justice system would likely collapse if every case went in front of a judge and/or jury.

But critics argue that the push to resolve cases through plea bargains jeopardizes the constitutional rights of defendants, who may be pressured to admit guilt whether they are guilty or not.

One example is Erma Faye Stewart, who was arrested along with 26 others after an informant tipped off the police to an alleged drug ring. Stewart told her court-appointed lawyer she was innocent, but with two young children at home, she took her lawyer’s advice to plead guilty to delivery of a controlled substance of more than four grams in a drug-free zone. She was sentenced to 10 years probation and was required to pay $1,800 in fines and report to her parole officer monthly.

Then, during the trial of one of the accused, it was discovered that the informant had lied about everything. All other cases were dismissed — but Stewart and the other seven people who pleaded guilty were left with charges on their record. Over the years, this meant that Stewart was ineligible for food stamps and federal education assistance. She was essentially left destitute.

The problem isn’t just bad advice from defense attorneys. Prosecutors now hold the cards when it comes to leveraging punishment, according to a recent New York Times investigation. The reporters found that mandatory sentencing laws have made the question of actual innocence or guilt almost irrelevant; rather, it’s a question of whether to risk facing a judge or jury.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/the-problem-with-pleas/

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.

Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.

Lawers alone are not what keeps hedge fund managers out of cells. The money talks at all levels.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.

Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.

Lawers alone are not what keeps hedge fund managers out of cells. The money talks at all levels.

Have you ever been related to an actual case? Actually it does. Prudent counsel starts long before a trial.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.

Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.

Lawers alone are not what keeps hedge fund managers out of cells. The money talks at all levels.

Have you ever been related to an actual case? Actually it does. Prudent counsel starts long before a trial.

Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors, bribe elected officials, and lobby for the declawing of financial regulation has nothing the feth to do with it. Clearly it's because they hire superlawers like you. Men with psychic powers and the ability to fundamentally alter the course of histories and the writ of the laws themselves.

Oh wait, no, that's just what they have done in the background while the lawyers stall.

**Albatross**

Do we know that either story is actually true? All we have is a .jpeg of what looks like two news stories. I'd like to read them and make my own mind up about whether or not to be outraged - all the OP has done is tell us that he is angry. I don't really care about that, if I'm being honest.

What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that. Fraud is a different crime to bank robbery. From what I can glean from (the, as yet, unproven) story in the picture, the homeless chap acted like he had a gun, putting the cashier in fear for her life. I imagine that's why he got such a stiff sentence.

**ShumaGorath**

What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that.

He was starving, it was 100 dollars, and he returned it the next day and turned himself in. Draconian gak like this is what is wrong with society. Was she scared? Probably, I bet he had a real scary hand. Now he's going to go to jail for 15 years. I'm sure it makes you feel safe at night to know that the dudes going to rot in a cell so that you don't have to worry about that 100 dollars he returned or the five minutes of worry the teller felt before she went on to make more money then that during her shift.

**Frazzled**

Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors,
***heresay

bribe elected officials,
***heresay

and lobby for the declawing of financial regulation
***finally some truth. Sentences are lighter when the crimes themselves are specified as lower level crimes, but again stare decisis matters here to. Much to my chagrin, even if the law were denoted as a "capital offense" under whatever jurisdiction, it wouldn't meet the standard and would be kicked out as unconstitutional as historically you can't cap someone for non violent crimes. I know I know but I admit the US legal system is just above pond scum.

has nothing the feth to do with it. Clearly it's because they hire superlawers like you. Men with psychic powers and the ability to fundamentally alter the course of histories and the writ of the laws themselves.
***Well...yeah. Shuma is finally right on something. If you knew more about how it works we could discuss it, but pulling teeth on educating you on the entire legal system takes more energy than I care to put out.

Oh wait, no, that's just what they have done in the background while the lawyers stall.
***No although stalling is an excellent tactic.

**Ahtman**

Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true?

There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades. Stealing the life savings of people isn't considered as serious as $100 dollars from a clerk becuase it was done in person and not on paper, even though more people are screwed over.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that.

He was starving, it was 100 dollars, and he returned it the next day and turned himself in.

Did he put the gun to the head of everyone in the bank? Did he put the gun to the head of a baby in a stroller? Its all in the details baby.

**mattyrm**

In the interests of fairness and equality, I think that money should be removed from the equation completely. Thus, homeless man and billionaire are given broom shanks with Boxing gloves taped to the end and some leather underpants. They then duel in a pit of death and pummel each other until one relents, the loser must do the longer sentence.

Although, I dont care about either of them frankly. Just because some rich dick is being a dick doesnt mean I think homeless dicks are super nice guys all of a sudden.

gak have you seen the state of tramps? He would probably have wound up in prison for eating someone next week anyway.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true?

There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades. Stealing the life savings of people isn't considered as serious as $100 dollars from a clerk becuase it was done in person and not on paper, even though more people are screwed over.

Exactly. Do I agree with it? Not a whit.

**Phototoxin**

It's called 'white collar crime' - I fiddle some books and make trillions. The global economy goes to hell - well I didn't hurt anyone!

I smell horribly, am unwashed, a drug addict and homeless. I am uneducated. I steal a sandwitch from tescos I get pummeled.

Compare and contrast : who is doing the greater evil (assuming you think stealing is evil/wrong)

Is the homeless man doing evil by stealing to feed himself?

**mattyrm**

Phototoxin wrote:

Is the homeless man doing evil by stealing to feed himself?

He didn't steal a sausage roll from a wheelie bin, he stole cash from a bank.

**ShumaGorath**

Well...yeah. Shuma is finally right on something. If you knew more about how it works we could discuss it, but pulling teeth on educating you on the entire legal system takes more energy than I care to put out.

I'm sure a criminal defense lawer like yo.. Oh wait. How much time have you spent in the prosecutors office during a financial law trial exactly? You a judge? Been hanging out with your senators? Been collecting financial records of hedge funds lately? I mean, you sure do sound like you're somehow actually involved with these processes. I'd hate for that to be the same fallacy you toss at us anytime someone brings up something vaguely law related and you pretend you're in every area of law from enforcement to prosecution to corrections.

Yes, I'm sure being able to pressure prosecutors,
***heresay

bribe elected officials,
***heresay

If it wasn't hearsay the trial would go differently.

**Frazzled**

It's called 'white collar crime' - I fiddle some books and make trillions. The global economy goes to hell - well I didn't hurt anyone!

I smell horribly, am unwashed, a drug addict and homeless. I am uneducated. I steal a sandwitch from tescos I get pummeled.

Compare and contrast : who is doing the greater evil (assuming you think stealing is evil/wrong)

**streamdragon**

Albatross wrote:Do we know that either story is actually true? All we have is a .jpeg of what looks like two news stories. I'd like to read them and make my own mind up about whether or not to be outraged - all the OP has done is tell us that he is angry. I don't really care about that, if I'm being honest.

What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that. Fraud is a different crime to bank robbery. From what I can glean from (the, as yet, unproven) story in the picture, the homeless chap acted like he had a gun, putting the cashier in fear for her life. I imagine that's why he got such a stiff sentence.

True, via Snopes

He wanted the money for food and to check into his rehab shelter, but felt so badly that he turned himself (and every penny of the $100) into police. The judge "felt the need to send a message" as I recall from elsewhere.

However, Snopes does point out that the guy getting 40 months for the Fraud case wasn't the mastermind, who got 30 years in prison.

Still, 2x the sentence for 30000000x the theft? Hardly seems fair, especially considering one guy was stealing for greed, the other almost for survival.

To the point the OP is trying to raise though, yes, the simple fact is that our justice system is flawed; those with more fame, wealth and/or power will often times escape real justice, while those with none of those things will almost always be punished. It is a sad fact.

**Frazzled**

If it wasn't hearsay the trial would go differently.

This reply is not even coherent, and relates not at all to the point. Its your opinion , based on nothing but the vapors coming out of your ass.

I'm sure a criminal defense lawer like yo.. Oh wait. How much time have you spent in the prosecutors office during a financial law trial exactly?

18 bazillion hours.

You a judge?

Of course I am. Jury and executioner as well.

Been hanging out with your senators?

Which ones? Roman, state, or federal?

Been collecting financial records of hedge funds lately?

I paper my wall with them.

I mean, you sure do sound like you're somehow actually involved with these processes. I'd hate for that to be the same fallacy you toss at us anytime someone brings up something vaguely law related and you pretend you're in every area of law from enforcement to prosecution to corrections.

I'm sorry, if I could find your point I'd rebut it.

Whats especially saddening is I don't think you even caught that I agreed about the sentencing.

**MrDwhitey**

He kept a hand under his jacket to imply he was armed, he never produced or had a firearm.

Actual reporting on this story is annoying to come by, as search engines are full of silly blogs full of crying, either from one side screaming greatest injustice since ... something very unjust... or that the guy clearly had a 20 page rap sheet and the news isn't reporting that "fact".

The amount of posts saying "Do a little research and you'll see he's a repeat offender who has spent his entire life in jail" whilst providing no sourcing or backup is infuriating.

**sarpedons-right-hand**

I stand by what I said, money talks. If you hire an uberlawyer, you are more likely to get handed a much lighter sentence or even get off scotfree.
Judges and juries are more likely to be repulsed by a stinking homeless guy with probono defence than a smart, intelligent(?) and charismatic guy with a super-lawyer...wether the homeless guy handed back the cash and repented or not. It's human nature. *shrugs*

**CT GAMER**

Well since we have the mandetory pic of the homeless "savage" (Always included so to make sure fine upstanding readers can attain proper levels of outrage and disgust) we should post the other subjects pic as well:

Not that skin color, socio-ecenomic status or other such factors had anything to do with sentencing...

**ShumaGorath**

This reply is not even coherent, and relates not at all to the point. Its your opinion , based on nothing but the vapors coming out of your ass.

You stated it was bull because we weren't hearing about it. I said if we were hearing about it it wouldn't be an issue because they would be getting caught. It's not a hard train of logic to follow.

18 bazillion hours.

So now you're in financial law? Two months ago you were doing property, a bit before that you were doing business, investment, and IP. I'm pretty sure I remember you doing immigration law in 2010. Maybe there are superlawers. A breed apart. Beings who know every law and every case in history across all boundaries.

Of course I am. Jury and executioner as well.

I don't see the shoulder pads.

Which ones? Roman, state, or federal?

Roman.

I paper my wall with them.

Isn't that illegal?

I'm sorry, if I could find your point I'd rebut it.

My point was that financial clout gives significant recourse for avoiding trials entirely and that when you have billions to burn you have an awful lot of power outside the courtroom to effect the course of events within it. That the process doesn't stop with hiring 'the best lawyers'.

Whats especially saddening is I don't think you even caught that I agreed about the sentencing.

I caught that, but you disagreed with me on what I'm arguing. Notice how we're not talking about a homeless dude.

**FITZZ**

Phototoxin wrote:It's called 'white collar crime' - I fiddle some books and make trillions. The global economy goes to hell - well I didn't hurt anyone!

I smell horribly, am unwashed, a drug addict and homeless. I am uneducated. I steal a sandwitch from tescos I get pummeled.

Compare and contrast : who is doing the greater evil (assuming you think stealing is evil/wrong)

Is the homeless man doing evil by stealing to feed himself?

The Rich get richer ( occasionally getting a slap on the wrist when caught stealing ungodly sums of money) , The poor get prison ....wonderful.
My opinion...White collar criminal should receive much harsher sentences than some impoverished would be stick up man...simply based on the impact the white collar criminals actions have on those involved....but...I doubt that sort of justice will ever occur.

**Albatross**

ShumaGorath wrote:
What are the facts? A homeless drug addict robs a bank and gets 15 years? Good. I don't see a problem with that.

He was starving, it was 100 dollars, and he returned it the next day and turned himself in. Draconian gak like this is what is wrong with society. Was she scared? Probably, I bet he had a real scary hand. Now he's going to go to jail for 15 years. I'm sure it makes you feel safe at night to know that the dudes going to rot in a cell so that you don't have to worry about that 100 dollars he returned or the five minutes of worry the teller felt before she went on to make more money then that during her shift.

I love how blasé you are about a person being robbed by what she believed was an armed homeless junkie. Yeah, feth her, she deserved it for doing her job and earning money. You're absolutely right. Presumably you're robbed at gunpoint every single day, so this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to you. However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience. The people I know that have been subject to armed robbery certainly seemed think it was, but then, they aren't battle-hardened internet warriors.

Ahtman wrote:There are a multitude of examples of this kind of thing, where white collar crimes that steal millions (or billions) from pensions or company funds get a small sentence but someone robbing a convenience store for a pittance gets decades.

Oh, I don't doubt that it happens. I'm just asking if we know that these two particular stories are true, is all. We didn't have much to go on originally.

**JEB_Stuart**

Oh Albatross, I do enjoy reading your posts

**Albatross**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Oh Albatross, I do enjoy reading your posts

I wish you were a Mod!