Absolutely.
A truly just punishment would be a massive fine (which would be used to help kids in impoverished families get assistance applying to college), and a short prison sentence (similar to what she got). But I doubt our system allows a fine big enough to see justice served in this case.
I havenât followed it closely, but paying someone to take the SAT and bribing people at a private school? That shouldnât carry a jail sentence either. Iâm not really sure what the crime should be for bribing your way into a private school. Seems like pretty standard practice via donations anyway and itâs just lol-USC (I think it was USC). SAT is a private thing too, right? Again, not really sure what the crime is other than lol-SAT. I guess there was some kind of false information on a federal form or something, but like a fine for that is more than appropriate.
If the homeless mom was lying to get her kid in a better school, she should be given a medal and her kid a scholarship.
Yeah I mean legally I donât know the crime, and I havenât followed it closely because I knew theyâd all get a slap on the wrist anyway⌠Morally the crime is that some poor parentsâ kid doesnât get to go to as good of a school, or the school theyâre dreaming of going to, just because Felicity Huffman had the money and power to get her kid in. Hence why I think a big fine that tries to rectify the wrongdoing is the just punishment. I also think a couple weeks in jail as a deterrent to others is +EV for society, regardless of whether itâs the just punishment to her - and itâs not like itâs going to severely impact her life long-term.
It was the tax evasion for the âdonationsâ that was a crime.
:shrug: then 3 x the donations or something.
As much as I may be on board for tax the rich or confiscate wealth or property is theft, Iâm not on board for big criminal punishments.
I agree. As loathsome as the whole thing was the punishment seems right to me.
The two worst parts were,
They already knew they were doing something wrong then to get tax credit just seems so bad.
perhaps worst of all, they had to get their kids to pretend to having a learning disability to get extra time so the sub could write the test for them. It hurts all those with real learning disabilities.
No. It was mail fraud. Even without claiming the deduction, she would have been guilty of the crime she was charged with. They could have threatened tax evasion charges also, but those donât seem to have been brought.
I know but I think due to the tax evasion. I could be mistaken but that is my understanding.
Edited my post. But basically even without claiming the deduction, she would have been guilty of the crime she was charged with. They could have threatened tax evasion charges also, but those donât seem to have been brought.
My bad. So what action was the mail fraud?
Not a fascinating read, but this explains the charge in general:
The parents who didnât take a plea deal seem to have been hit with additional money laundering charges.
Itâs like putting Elaine in prison for moving to a closet to get Chinese food!
Agree
Um⌠Do you think bribery to falsify SAT scores and deceive colleges and future employers should be legalized?
And the takeaway I get is that once again we see how the judicial system is rigged to oppress black and brown poor people
Sorry, I already responded to your first post before reading those below it. Not much to add except it isnât just bribing your way into a private school. It is deceiving colleges and future employers that could mean tens, hundreds, or millions of dollars over the the kidâs career. Iâd consider this ill gotten
Exactly. The takeaway is that what Felicity did is much worse and received a slap on the wrist compared to the homeless mom
That was a districting issue
Obviously the right canât be trusted with prisons. I donât think the left can either. Maybe itâs time forâŚ
Am I reading correctly that this judge is 29 years old?
Heâs probably been added to the shortlist for RBGâs seat as we speak.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct said that Canning, 29, failed âto maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved,â that he failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and that he âfailed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.â
