Skip to main content

View Diary: Bank of America's Execs Get $2 Billion Stay-Out-Of Jail Card (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unfortunately, putting one person in jail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    has not proved to deter others from committing the same crime. Crooks always think they are smarter than the guy that got caught and those that don't think that don't care. They're in it for the thrill of the contest to see who can best whom.
    Putting them in jail just costs us money.  
    Besides, the lesson we should take away from this is that our legal system has been corrupted to make theft legal and, if we want that changed, we've got to elect different people to our legislative bodies.

    Also, it's only money and, as a matter of fact, if we get over the myth that there's a limited supply, the federal government can always make more. Meanwhile, making them cough up two billion is two billion which can be sent circulating through the economy making more jobs and educating more doctors and lawyers and scientists.

    The bad thing about letting incompetents hoard money is that they're incompetent.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 03:22:49 PM PDT

    •  I wish I could give a comment an unrec (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      not an HR, but an unrec.  

      •  I second the unrec (0+ / 0-)

        These guys Committed crimes and they are getting away with it because they are rich and connected.

        •  No, they are getting away with depriving (0+ / 0-)

          other people of their property and human rights because the laws, which are supposed to punish such behavior have been jiggered to make deprivation legal.
          The attitude which led Richard Nixon to say "if the President does it, it's not a crime," is not unique to him.  It is widely shared by Republicans who seek public office for the express purpose of suborning the law to make immoral behavior legal and acceptable. After all, the great United States experiment started out with the determination that the law should be used to define some humans as less than a whole person and, ipso facto, liable to being owned by another person like any other property.
          There is a good reason why conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy is a great champion of the rule of law. The law is more permanent than mortal men, easy to revise to suit the authorities of the time and, when it determines a man should die prematurely, it leaves no fingerprints. The state's chief executioner need not even wash his hands. So, Rick Perry can gleefully extinguish 230 men by following the law.
          To observe that the law permits humans to commit immoral acts is not to excuse. It is to accuse the law of abuse and the legal system of being abusive.

          We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 02:14:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That was snarky (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duckmg, carpunder

      but I found your point confusing.  B/c jail doesn't serve as a deterrent (according to you) than we shouldn't pursue jail time for people breaking the law?  Its strange that this maxim only seems to apply to executives at a top financial companies.  The guy selling drugs down the street won't be able to use the same argument.  Jail is more than a deterrent than our society, its also a punishment.

      Its funny that you bring up costs, when the costs of incarcerating these executives probably pales in comparison to the cost to taxpayers of repaying the people they defrauded and debts they've created.  

      In fact, I think this is a situation where jail would be a great deterrent.  These people have too much to lose.  You send them to jail, you make them pay out of their own pockets the cost of their willful fraud, you restrict their ability to work in the financial industry in the future - if that were to happen I'm betting the execs at Bank of America get a little more truthful when they start thinking about their next opportunity to defraud someone.  

      •  Abusive humans need to be deterred. (0+ / 0-)

        However, under our system of justice, it is only repetition (by the same individual) that can be deterred. I just happen to think that the negative experience of one person will act to deter the criminal behavior of another is not well founded.
        Punishing one to make another good is a nice idea, but it doesn't work. I say it's a nice idea because it salves the conscience of those who have to inflict the punishment to think that it will do more good down the road. (Certainly, the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth did not deter others from being killed on principle).
        Anyway, we can keep people from doing the same evil a second time by locking them away, unless we turn our prisons over to being managed by the inmates, in which case the crime continues only in a new confined space. Putting people in jail because they abused money, a worthless figment of the imagination hardly seems worth while. If they accummulated too much under false pretenses, make them give it all back and mark them as unfit to handle money in the future. Money is worthless, much as the letters of our alphabet are worthless. However, depriving others of the use of money is as harmful as depriving them of literacy. More, actually, because one can gather sustenance and seek shelter without knowingnhowmtomread and write, but in the modern world where natural resources have been allocated as property rights, people need money to acquire the necessities of life. So, to deprive them of money is to subject them to stress and the threat of starvation. Which is a crime, but, because it occurs behind the shield of money, an assertion such as "there is no free lunch" can be passed off as a virtue.
        That people playing with money lost some is not nearly as serious a crime as the fact that some people have to beg for food and shelter and clean water to drink because the tokens they need to buy them have been denied by the participants in the game on Wall Street. Putting those crooks in prison where they will be fed, sheltered and protected from disease hardly seems fair, especially if we assume that the Wall Street gamblers aren't total incompetents, which some of the people existing under highway bridges as scavengers clearly are.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 02:38:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site