Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let the punishment fit the crime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Let the punishment fit the crime



    17 years in clink + 3 years supervised release + $20,324,560 fine + $6,588,949.50 restitution for smuggling. You get less than this for being a priest with a choirboy. Where is our sense of proportion?
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

  • #2
    Maybe because he hurt a lot of people, albeit probably less than the "few" choirboys, but in sum in could be more?

    Maybe becuase the priest suffered from weakness of the flesh, but this guy willfully committed a crime, I mean, there can be no excuse for this at all? (Not trying to justify a priest here, really)

    Maybe because tax fraud is a crime against the State?

    I have to say, the imprisonment seems a bit long to me.
    Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
    [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

    Comment


    • #3
      His tax fraud amounted to every man, woman and child in the USA had to pay an extra 2 cents of tax, or a wee bit more, to compensate. That is going to hurt no one.

      I'm not condoning tax fraud or his criminal offences, but the punishment seems out of all proportion, to me, when so many people who have committed really heinous crimes get their knuckles tapped with a ruler and are told to be good boys and not to do it again (think of some of the high profile cases).

      It should make no difference whether a crime is committed against the state or an individual. Is not justice supposed to be blind?
      Last edited by Brian Ellis; 27 May 2004, 01:39.
      Brian (the devil incarnate)

      Comment


      • #4
        Are you reading the same page as me? Did you happen to miss that he was selling chemicals that cause harm to environment? Thats why the hammered the guy since he was willfully damaging the environment and he was made an example of.
        Why is it called tourist season, if we can't shoot at them?

        Comment


        • #5
          What he was doing was not illegal with respect to either the Clean Air Act or the Montreal Protocol. Of course the Freon is ozone-depleting but the ban against the manufacture or the import in the USA did not take effect until 1 Jan 1996. His imports were made in 1993-1995. If they had been declared correctly and he had paid the tax on them, there would have been no problem. There have been a number of cases of illegal imports since 1996 and they were always prosecuted by the EPA, not the IRS. There is absolutely no question here of the EPA being represented in the prosecution's case.

          IMHO, this case is purely fiscal. Reading between the lines, I suspect he probably did worse than what he was condemned for, after refusing a plea bargain.
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment

          Working...
          X