<p>some may have used the phrase “obviously impaired”. That is part that I disagree with. It isn’t always obvious. Some appear to hold their liquor far better than others. That appearance doesn’t change BAC, I understand, but it muddies the phrase “obviously impaired”.
Also, we are mostly of the age to remember when driving impaired was known as drunk driving. That phrase is used much less often now, for good reason. A person with .08 is probably not drunk; and probably not close to what most of us would call drunk. But it is considered impaired, and it is illegal. It would be easy, and common, for a person at .08 to say he wasn’t drunk, and he’d probably be right, though he’d still be impaired and illegal. I think that’s why lawmakers and law enforcers are getting away from saying “drunk driving”, and instead are using phrases like “impaired”, “under the influence”, or “intoxicated”.</p>
<p>Going back to Golfer’s original question regarding the severity of sentences for many crimes, I think we at a point where this has become a serious problem.</p>
<p>Let me state at the outset, that I have no sympathy with a defendant accused of a violent crime or one where the victim has been terrorized, such as being held up at gunpoint. If there is enough evidence to convict, I am all for putting away these people for a long time. I am concerned, however, with the increasingly long sentences for white-collar crime. Sometimes, these sentences are longer than what people have receive for attempted murder charges.</p>
<p>The problem lies with intent. It is very difficult for a prosecutor to prove intent when an executive of a company is accused of fraud and conspiracy. There is a thin line separating bad judgement, stupidity or incompetence with criminal intent. Therefore, prosecutors will frequently cut deals with employees who have interacted with the target to provide testimony that will show intent. The problem is that their credibility is highly suspect because in most cases they are trying to save their own necks. </p>
<p>Besides overcharging these cases to force defendants to plead to lessor charges, federal prosecutors have creatively used the RICO laws to indict and convict people for financial crimes. One doesn’t have to prove intent to get a jury to convict the accused of a RICO violation. RICO does not require intent, recklessness, willfulness, or even knowledge on part of the accused. In fact the law was originally written to be used only in organized crime cases, but prosecutors saw it as an easy vehicle to obtain convictions in a wide variety of white-collar crime cases.</p>
<p>Many white-collar crimes, like insider trading, accounting fraud or securities fraud require sophisticated knowledge of finances, accounting and tax and business law, which most jurors are do not have. If a jury does not really understand the intricacies of the charges and the acts that led to the charges, it is highly unlikely the defendant is going to get a fair trial</p>
<p>There has been great pressure by the public to punish people for the perceived fraud that occurred in the mortgage industry and the use of derivatives to take advantage of the tremendous profits associated with this business in the past. The problem, as I said earlier, is that greed, reckless behavior, or lack of prudence is not necessarily a crime. I am all for punishing people who broke laws for personal gain, but we must be careful not to go after people as a response to political pressures brought to bear upon our politicians.</p>
<p>Finally, for those people who have been convicted of financial malfeasance, the prison sentences are bordering on absurd. For example, Jeffrey Skilling, of Enron fame, who claims that the demise of Enron was not the result of criminal intent (a dubious assertion) received a 24-year sentence. However, a few years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to resentence him. The Dept of Justice recently agreed to reduce the sentence by 10 years. There have been many other examples of ridiculously long sentences for white-collar crimes. A judicial system which bends to political pressure by imposing sentences that do not fit the crime is one where the rule of law, the bedrock of a democratic system, can be sacrificed for anyone of us.</p>
<p>GP, you’re defending Jeffrey Skilling? Seriously? The dude stole hundreds of millions of dollars and ruined thousands of people’s lives.</p>
<p>I agree with you that 24 years for Skilling is the wrong sentence. I’d suggest, oh, say, being torn apart by wolves.</p>
<p>I didn’t say he was innocent, just that his sentence didn’t fit the crime. Also, stealing money would imply that Skilling kept the money for his personal gain. I don’t think Skilling was worth hundreds of millions of dollars at the time he was charged with these crimes. </p>
<p>Here are two quotes from an article in the Economist about the Enron case:</p>
<p>“The scandalous collapse of Enron may have started out as a case study in abusive management but it is ending up looking more like a worrying example of overzealous prosecution by government.” </p>
<p>“However, the unfortunate impression that this string of legal upsets has left is of a scrabble to bring convictions at all costs rather than a quest for truth and justice.”</p>
<p>[The</a> Enron case revisited: Enron’s Skilling wins his appeal | The Economist](<a href=“Enron's Skilling wins his appeal”>Enron's Skilling wins his appeal)</p>
<p>CF, I didn’t initially see your “wolves” remark. I must say you have a very active imagination. :)</p>
<p>I don’t agree that you didn’t steal it if you didn’t keep it for your personal gain. If I steal your car and give it to the Nature Conservancy, would you say I didn’t steal it?</p>
<p>If I work for a swindling bank that steals the money of widows and orphans, and I myself am involved in stealing the last pennies of starving mothers and golden-haired moppets, am I not still a thief?</p>
<p>I agree with Fang about Jeffrey Skilling. Goldenpooch, while it’s true that Skilling didn’t come out of it so well, his intent was to enrich himself and his buddies. He willfully defrauded shareholders, auditors, and the public, and cost Enron employees not only their jobs but their retirement funds to the tune of $2 billion. He ruined a lot of peoples’ lives, fer cryin out loud. The only thing that’s “absurd” is that he didn’t get life without parole, and that he’s getting to serve his sentence in a country-club prison.</p>
<p>CF, are you saying Robin Hood was not a good guy? :)</p>
<p>Okay, maybe Skilling was a bad example, although I still think he got a inappropriate sentence. Look up the case of Prabhat Goyal, the former chief financial officer of Network Associates, who was convicted of 15 counts of securities fraud. The appeals court overturned the conviction on the basis that no rational jury would have convicted him based on the evidence presented. This is a pretty damning indictment of the jury that did convict him.</p>
<p>There is some misinformation about the issue with Skilling’s case so let me clear that up. He was re sentenced for 2 reasons. (disclaimer: This is to the best of my knowledge)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The appeals court ruled that the judge misapplied the sentencing guidelines when he considered Enron to be a “financial institution.” </p></li>
<li><p>The Supreme Court overturned part of his verdict based on Honest Services Fraud (as it applied to Skilling) being too vague. However, the appeals court after SCOTUS made the ruling said that Skilling’s sentence would have been the same even without the tainted legal theory. Here’s where it gets tricky. To my understanding, Skilling was planning on accusing the Enron Task Force of very serious misconduct. There are many legal scholars that argue Skilling should get a whole new trial. However, that poses risks because he may be found guilty again and get even a longer sentence. Therefore, he reached an agreement with the government to drop all appeals in exchange for getting his sentence cut to about 14 years. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I agree Skilling is a bad guy and should get jail time but I would appreciate it if people read a little more about the case because there were some serious issues of prosecutor misconduct IMO. Also, Google “James Olis” for more info. Olis was another exec (Dynergy) that got his sentence reduced. (24 years to 6)</p>
<p>Also, as for Goldenpooch’s assertion that complexes cases favor the prosecutor, I mostly disagree. Cases in which people have a pre-concieved notion of the law that is very broad helps the defendant. This is why the government IMO has been successful against insider trading and has failed miserably in prosecuting bankers for the 2008 crash. People walk into court with an idea of insider trading almost always well beyond the legal standard. Read some of the online comments about the Mark Cuban case and most of them completely miss the point. Everyone thinks the central issue is if the info was public. The central issue is did Cuban have a “duty” not to sell those shares. Also, Martha Stewart never went to jail for insider trading. She went to jail for obstruction of justice. </p>
<p>A similar issue of jury bias sometimes happens with rape cases as sometimes people make the mistake of thinking that the victim must be severely injured to be raped. Thats why rape cases tend to be hard to prove against those with good counsel and its unfortunately not uncommon for prosecutors to choose cases simply based on a defendants inability to defend himself. How often do you hear about a millionaire being falsely convicted of rape?</p>
<p>Golfer, I never said complex cases favor the defendant; au contraire, I think they generally favor the prosecution. Juries that don’t understand the evidence tend to convict defendants or put their faith in the government’s case.</p>
<p>Let’s don’t go to Robin Hood legend as a parallel for today. There are many today that feel all those with wealth must have used illegal or immoral means to acquire it, and therefore taking from them to give to the poor(Robin Hood legend) is justified.
Some agree with this idea, some don’t, but that’s all I am going to say about that.</p>
<p>
Am amazed that one went by without comment…</p>
<p>I am a non drinker but I have seen many couples polishing more than one bottle of wine at dinner. If there’s a roadblock checkpoint (common in CA during the holidays) when they exit the restaurant, I am sure they will be convicted.</p>
<p>Many couples? Seriously?
I think you have a drinking problem in your area, unless they are those tiny bottles of wine that only hold two Olivia Pope size glasses.
Even when my husband was drinking ( he hasnt had a drink for 17 yrs) ) we barely finished one bottle & never attempted two bottles at dinner.
Thats just crazy.</p>
<p>I have to agree that more than one bottle of wine between 2 people is not at all uncommon. I have been at several business functions lately with what I describe as the “bottomless wine glass”. The servers just keep pouring as soon as someone’s glass gets close to empty. I believe many at the functions (including me on occasion) have consumed more than half a bottle of wine. In this case, we weren’t driving (at a hotel), but I have no doubt that multiple bottles of wine are consumed on many instances by 2 people- usually in a group. Over the course of a long meal, this is not that hard to do, really.</p>
<p>I agree that if you normally drink a lot of wine, you wont necessarily notice drinking a large quantity as unusual.
People who drink regularly can develop a tolerance, but it still affects their reaction time.
But for those who rarely drink, two glasses can be a lot.</p>
<p>Maybe they wouldn’t drink so much if they knew how many calories they were consuming!
[Units</a> and calories in wine](<a href=“http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/what-is-alcohol/types-of-alcohol/units-and-calories-in-wine/]Units”>http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/what-is-alcohol/types-of-alcohol/units-and-calories-in-wine/)</p>
<p>[Do</a> You Drink Too Much - How Do You Know When You’re an Alcoholic - Oprah.com](<a href=“http://www.oprah.com/health/Do-You-Drink-Too-Much-How-Do-You-Know-When-Youre-an-Alcoholic]Do”>Do You Drink Too Much - How Do You Know When You're an Alcoholic)</p>
<p>
Haha - I was waiting for the comments to fly on that post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct. Also we have a large concentration of people who consider themselves wine “connoisseurs” and wouldn’t think twice of having wine pairings with each course at restaurants.
In addition, my H still has extended family members (in another part of the country) who wouldn’t consider having dinners before they had their cocktails.</p>
<p>Almost 15% of the U.S. population will experience “alcohol problems” or “alcoholism” at some point in their adult lives. (It’s higher among Caucasians, and among men, lower among others.)</p>
<p>Am amazed that one went by without comment…</p>
<p>Aint got time to argue with Mysogynists today.</p>