Originally Posted By DAR like right now. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_bi_ge/madoff_scandal" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._scandal</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Because we have a warped justice system that favors class over fairness. Mind, it's still a good system. But I would like to see some tort reform that addresses the fact that wealthy white collar criminals always seem to have an advantage over the poor. It's also an issue of education; the wealthy are more likely to know their rights. I remember sitting in my Early Medieval England class as we reviewed early law codes. Students laughed at the notion that different penalties carried different fines, and if you couldn't pay the fine, you were imprisoned. They saw the obvious unfairness that would guarantee nobles freedom and peasants prison, but the irony was completely lost on them.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yup. Even speeding tickets are grossly unfair when you stop to think of it. It hurts people proportionately depending on how rich they are. If it were a percentage of your income, that would be a different story. Or even something altogether different, such as an hour of community service per mile-per-hour you are speeding. But the rich folks would never have THAT right, so they'd strike it down before it got very far. See how that works? ;p
Originally Posted By Mr X Should be "rich folks would have THAT, right?"... That would be far too fair. After all, a $150 ticket that stings most of us a bit but totally screws the minimum wage janitor for the whole month is, for the well to do, as much of a bother as the time it takes to hand your personal assistant a piece of paper and say "take care of this, will you?".
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Even speeding tickets are grossly unfair when you stop to think of it. It hurts people proportionately depending on how rich they are. If it were a percentage of your income, that would be a different story. >>> I understand that certain Scandinavian countries have traffic fines set in proportion to your taxable income in order to prevent exactly the sort of unfairness you cite. I would guess that any attempt to do the same in the US would run afoul of the equal protection clause.
Originally Posted By Mr X Perhaps electing a Socialist president might be a good start. Oh, wait. No violent revolution necessary.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I can't explain why he's not in jail pending trial. This judge is wacky. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/12/news/newsmakers/madoff_judge_ruling/index.htm?postversion=2009011212" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/1...09011212</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Tom Petters, a local rich guy being charged with multi-billion dollar fraud has not been released since his initial arrest. The judge considers him a flight risk and has kept him in the slammer without bail.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost We also have that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing to contend with. He actually is confined, as I understand it, to his apartment via an ankle bracelet that prevents him from leaving the confines of his home. Granted he probably has everything he needs there, but it still must sting to know you can't leave. Your freedom is basically stopped. I know it doesn't seem like much but to someone that is used to opulence and social attention it must be a bit upsetting.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If you have the resources to get out of the country FAST, an ankle bracelet isn't going to keep you at home. That is why the judge did not give Petters the option of home confinement. Of course it probably didn't help matters that they had Petters on tape talking to a friend about borrowing his yacht to leave the country. ;-)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Of course it probably didn't help matters that they had Petters on tape talking to a friend about borrowing his yacht to leave the country. >>> Probably not.
