<p>Do they drive themselves?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you make the same argument that a common thief who steals without violence is “not a danger to society”?</p>
<p>All of the other concerns that you brought up in post #77 mainly indicate that white collar crime can be complex to define (both whether a crime has been committed and how great its magnitude is), which can create issues with “correctness” of the verdict. But they do not contradict the fact that a white collar criminal can steal a lot more money from a lot more people than a common thief.</p>
<p>Well, Congress is considering trying to force States to get tougher on food stamp fraud (what we used to call it). And, there are significant penalties for auto theft (even non violent theft not involving car jacking) for new and near new luxury vehicles that are then shipped out to Africa.</p>
<p>Assuming a white collar criminal pays any taxes, should the sentence for upping taxes through welfare/food stamp fraud and stealing his or her ride, be greater than for insider trading, or should the sentences be the same since none of the criminals are dangers to society?</p>
<p>In California, only 1 in 4 state prisoners are there for violent crimes. <a href=“Legislative Analyst's Office”>Legislative Analyst's Office;
<p>I think what we ought to do with first DUI offenses is not to impose jail time, but impose a really substantial financial penalty, starting with expropriating the car that was used for the crime. I think a big fine calculated as a percentage of the driver’s annual income would be the best thing to do–I understand this is being done in some European countries. There would be less pressure on prosecutors to plea bargain to avoid ruining somebody’s life, and I think it would get people’s attention if you took their toys away.</p>
<p>UCB, a common thief is getting a fraction of the time many of the white collar criminals are receiving for their crimes.</p>
<p>@goldenpooch: insider trading doesn’t get 20-25 year sentences and sentences for financial fraud cases (even very serious fraud such as massive ponzi schemes) are rare unless the scam is just enormous (i.e. Madoff, Petters Group, Stanford Bank). </p>
<p>One thing I found interesting is that such a high percentage of people convicted of white collar crime are foreign nationals. Obviously a lot of has been said about the Indian Americans involved with the Galleon Group, but a lot of financial crimes in general are committed by those with roots outside the U.S. I’ve talked to some friends I have that come from other countries and they say while they don’t condone cheating, they don’t have the same hatred towards it as in America. Also, my parents are Italian and they say that people in Europe, while maybe not accepting of things like fraud and bribery don’t get as worked up over it as they know its almost impossible to stop. Remember, the SEC and DOJ may have made Steve Cohen 1.8B poorer and sued Mark Cuban but in the meantime they missed Madoff, an entire financial crisis, Stanford Bank, Lehman, etc.
The blue collar analogy to this is that people in Europe don’t get the point of jailing someone for 30 years for stealing cigarettes if its a third strike The idea that no one must ever get away with breaking a law no matter how small seems to have become an American tradition. People in the U.S. tend to get very “apocalyptic” if they think people will get away with crimes (i.e. If one burglar is not caught, then another burglar will think he can get away to…therefore everyone will be in danger…therefore people will arm themselves…more violance…more arms…etc. until the world becomes a Cormac McCarthy novel)</p>
<p>Don’t drink and drive; it’s that simple.</p>
<p>[Dentist</a> gets 12 years for DUI deaths on Harbour Island | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/drunk-driving-dentist-takes-plea-deal-in-2010-deaths-of-two-on-harbour/2151336]Dentist”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/drunk-driving-dentist-takes-plea-deal-in-2010-deaths-of-two-on-harbour/2151336)</p>
<p>So the reason white collar financial crime is considered serious is not because of the number of victims, or the cost to them, but because it leads to mistrust of financial/market systems. At all costs, we have to maintain the mythology that they aren’t rigged, that those who win are “deserving” and those who don’t are not.</p>
<p>Mini, what’s your alternative?</p>
<p>to? (I think that would go in a different forum - but I’ve talked about Rawls’ Theory of Justice multiple times already…)</p>
<p>I’m just explaining why white collar financial crime is considered extremely serious. A burglary by a poor person in a poor neighborhood doesn’t threaten any center of power in any serious way. A financial crime - even a smallish one - challenges and threatens the entire American way of life.</p>
<p>I’m a bit late to this thread but for anyone wondering what the consequences of a first offense DUI can be–for a student and for their family–we had a very good discussion here back in the springtime on my family’s situation. It’s a very long thread but the first couple pages will give you the gist of it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1506779-sons-prom-night-dui.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1506779-sons-prom-night-dui.html</a></p>
<p>@northcarolinadad:</p>
<p>Has your son completed all the legal consequences (other than having his license suspended)? </p>
<p>If he hasn’t, deal with those first. As to the long term consequences, I would first check to see if your state has certain rules for job applicants (i.e. some states ban employers from asking about previous convictions until they’ve been chosen for an interview). These are tricky as sometimes they can be very specific (i.e. for certain misdemeanors and all felonies one still must declare, or all misdemeanors are excluded). Also, I’m going to ignore civil liability issues since I don’t know enough about your case. </p>
<p>A lot depends on what your son wants to do? What type of careers are he looking at?</p>
<p>NCDad, the thread is too long to read all of it, but I gather for a first time DUI he had to spend time in jail. This is exactly what is wrong with the criminal justice system. There is no way your son should have gone to jail. DUI laws have become absurd for first-time offenders. </p>
<p>Politicians are afraid to stand up to MADD and other special interest groups that are willing to destroy our civil liberties in the name of draconian, punitive laws which indiscriminately lash out at anyone who gets ensnared in their extremist agenda.</p>
<p>
I disagree (as do many other posters here). </p>
<p>Read to NCDad’s second post on that thread. His S didn’t just barely get a DUI, he was under the legal drinking age (17), double (.16) the limit if he ‘would’ have been the legal drinking age, had a minor passenger in the car, and was speeding. </p>
<p>The above are the reasons he likely received jail time I’m guessing (but NCDad knows more). It’s because he put himself, his minor passenger, and everyone else on the road at great risk. Luckily he was stopped before any crash occurred.</p>
<p>I’m sure NCDad’s S knew he wasn’t supposed to drink, knew he wasn’t supposed to drive after drinking, knew he was putting others at risk of bodily harm, knew there’d be penalties if he was caught, but did it anyway.</p>
<p>Are you saying it doesn’t matter how drunk the person was or which of these other mitigating factors should be considered? What do you think should have happened?</p>
<p>Thanks to NCDad for that thread - it’s a good reminder to everyone of one of the consequences of drinking and driving even when the more severe consequences (crash/injury/death) are escaped.</p>
<p>His son made a mistake and should have received a punishment which did not entail prison time. From what I can gather, his son is not a bad kid or a recidivist DUI offender who necessitated a penalty more appropriate for an individual who is truly a danger to other cars on the road. </p>
<p>A financial penalty, time spent in some kind of community service and a suspension of his drivers license would seem to be appropriate for a kid who has never been in trouble and does not have a background which would suggest he is going to get in trouble again. What ever happened to common sense?</p>
<p>Help me understand then Pooch, if that kid didn’t have the aggravating factors of being underage, way over the booze limit, having a minor with him, and speeding; so if he’d been 21, alone and just barely over the bac limit- what do you see as a fair punishment then? Surely you don’t equate the 2 examples as punishment goes…?</p>
<p>And given those aggravating factors, how can you indicate he isn’t “truly a danger to other cars…”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… A mistake that could have easily killed someone, and, yes, certainly a danger to other cars (people) on the road.</p>
<p>And, as I remember, NCDad admitted that and did not try to downplay his son’s offense. He was acting as a concerned, loving father should. A lot of parents sympathized with him yet still believed that a prison (jail? can’t remember which) sentence was appropriate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jail. Prison is where felons go to for longer sentences. Those convicted of misdemeanors resulting in shorter sentences are put in jail.</p>
<p>Teenagers do stupid things, but most of them are good kids who would never intentionally harm anyone. From what I read, NCDad’s kid was a good student, had never been in trouble before, and was not likely to do this again. I would ask parents on this forum if they can say with absolute assurance that their kids would never do something stupid like this. For a minor with no record, who doesn’t show any propensity for this type of behavior, jail time is inappropriate. DUI laws are improperly making criminals of people who are not a danger to anyone.</p>
<p>What? Driving drunk is not a danger to anyone? What can you possibly be saying? A friend of mine lost his beautiful daughter to a drunk driver. She was the designated driver, walking to get her car, when she was mowed down by a drunk. How can you possibly say someone who drives drunk is not a danger?</p>
<p>Are you saying that someone who gets caught driving drunk will stop driving drunk with a sternly worded lecture? That doesn’t seem to be true.</p>