@Hanna “Do enlighten me. If my employer leaves the safe unlocked and I help myself to a million dollars, that’s mitigation?”
If your employer leaves the safe unlocked and you are sitting at your desk doing your work and your employer sends someone to walk over to you and say “hey, the safe is unlocked, we can take a million dollars” and when you say “I’m not sure”, the guy sent by the employer says to you “Everyone here does it all the time and we never get caught and we’ve been doing it for years”, then some might consider that a form of entrapment. Especially if the guy who is telling you this is someone who comes highly recommended by lots of successful people as the guy who gives the best advice. I am not arguing that it is entrapment, but I would say that it is different than your example of simply helping yourself to a million dollars (which is more of an analogy to what Singer did, not the parents).
I think most people agree that committing a crime is wrong. But most people also see the difference between going out looking to commit a crime because you want to commit that crime, and being talked into committing that crime by someone who is very skilled at convincing you that committing the crime is a good idea and had that person never approached you with the idea of committing the crime, then you would never have committed the crime - even if the safe was open (which you likely would not even know!)
@observer12: I believe that entrapment requires government or at least quasi-government action.
But, your point that lack of premeditation can result in a lesser charge or a lesser penalty, is reasonable & a valid legal argument in many criminal matters.
In the college admissions scandal, I do not know–even though that information might be publicly available–how the individuals came in contact with the main orchestrater. It may have been a seemingly legal solicitation such as “I get results” (commonly referred to as “puffery”), or it may have originated with a more devious solicitation. Regardless, federal law provides for mitigation in all sentencing matters & in all charges which have a lesser included offense & in plea negotiations, etc. Very common. So your point is well taken that circumstances matter including those giving rise to alleged criminal activity.
Another interesting point is with respect to how the 50 individuals were charged. About 4, if I recall correctly, were charged by “information”. This suggests a co-operating witness who most likely plead guilty to lesser charges & hope to get a reduced sentence. Those charged by “complaint” are being invited to make a deal. Those charged by “indictment” will likely experience mitigation if they plead guilty, co-operate or produce mitigating evidence during trial or at sentencing.
P.S. For anyone curious about specific examples of “mitigation”, “mitigating circumstances” or similar reductions of penalties or of crimes charged, obtaining a copy of annotated federal sentencing guidelines should provide thousands of examples.
As an example of an extreme, but successful, mitigation argument, in Texas a young man received a very light sentence based on a condition related to being privileged as a member of a wealthy family for his entire life. I cannot recall the term coined in that matter, but it was the subject of many national news reports a few years ago.
Great opinion piece. If you get the chance look up the admissions process video of Amherst College on youtube. If it is representative of how a college selects applicants, there are multiple people looking at and voting on an applicant. How these red flags were missed is beyond me. Clearly money talks here. Disgraceful.
Money has and always will talk. I mean, we live in a country where the more money you have, the more “free speech” you have. As long as we live in a country that condones and even protects this behavior, it’s not really surprising the rich can do whatever they want - including buying their way into college.
This is really not an area subject to disagreement as both concepts exist in our legal system.
P.S. One doesn’t need a law degree to understand the existence of & to appreciate the differences in the two concepts. But for those who may be still struggling, one lessens & the other excuses.
“MITIGATION” --In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as extenuating circumstances, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lower sentence. Unlike a legal defense, it cannot lead to the acquittal of the defendant.
“EXONERATE”–To lift, remove the stain of being called out for blame, liability or punishment. It is more than just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that the accused should never have been accused in the first place. Refer to acquit and exculpate.
Perhaps it is representative of how Amherst select students, but perhaps not. It really only represents what Amherst wanted us to see.
Regardless, it clearly is not representative of all schools, not even most schools. Heck, it might not even be representative of top private schools. It is just one anecdote.
Because it relates to the college admissions scandal & potential ways for defendants to present defenses in mitigation.
After all, isn’t that the point raised in the article which is the subject of this thread ? (I know college admissions from the inside–schools basically sign off on scandal.)
@Nrdsb4 It’s pretty lame but apparently Bill Macy was only recorded discussing the younger daughter’s proposed cheating, and they decided not to go through with that.
IMO it’s obvious he was in on both kids’ admissions and this technicality saved him.
Overall I find the coverage of this scandal to be very “bad mommy” slanted, but I get that the moms are much more well known than the dads (except Bill Macy) in these cases. TV stars (B list or not) vs hedge fund managers and law firm partners, etc. The Lori Loughlin husband is apparently a well known designer (if you shop at Target) and is rarely mentioned and his photo appears much less than the twin moms (LL and FH).
The titans of Wall St and Big Law seem to be getting away with far less publicity.
I’m sure someone other than me has noticed this and already written about it.
Hmm, that could be tricky as far as their relationship goes. The court room sketch artist did mention that when his wife’s case came up before the court, Macy got rather emotional.
The mom from Akron who went to JAIL for using her father’s address to get her kids into a whiter. better school district, is amazingly generous and kind about this scandal:
Incidentally, my mom did something similar for me in 6th grade, used a friend’s address to get me into a better school district.
Our Ohio district sued a couple of parents who did this - no criminal charges but suing for tuition. The Akron case was extreme but poor single black mom is apparently less sympathetic. I read at the time they followed her to and from her home after dropping off her daughter.
It doesn’t sound outrageous to me. Suppose a college is holding try-outs for a men’s basketball team. There’s no question, it’s almost impossible for anyone under six feet tall to compete at the top levels. Yet, it would be be very odd to have lower standards to get on the team for anyone who is height challenged, ex. any man under 5’8. Just because your medical or physical condition makes it more difficult or even impossible for you to do something, doesn’t mean a private university needs to lower the bar.
