Ebbers sentenced to 30 years in prison - Corporate Scandals - MSNBC.com
Ebbers sentenced to 30 years in prison - Corporate Scandals - MSNBC.com
My first thought on reading this was "Who?" Then I realized that's why he was was found guilty - he's not a household name. If 95% of the populace has never heard of you, or couldn't pick you out of a lineup, your chances of getting convicted of ANY crime, despite a complete lack of evidence, goes up exponentially.
Three high-profile cases come to mind: OJ Simpson, Martha Stewart (who WAS convicted, but received a lighter sentence due to her celebrity status) and the infamous Michael Jackson cases.
Before I go any further, I should probably preface my comments with this disclaimer: I am not stating that I think these people are innocent or guilty - just that if a non-celeb were to be put in their position, the verdict would have been guilty and the punishments more severe.
Let's say yours truly is speeding down the freeway, being chased by the police because my wife was found dead at the house. The officers pull me over, arrest me, find her blood in my car, as well as other evidence that may or may not link me to the crime. Guess what? I'm going to jail. I'm no celebrity, no one will really miss me anyway, and its a good way for the police to improve their "solved homicide" count.
What if I get caught participating in insider trading? Granted, I don't play the stock market, but a few years back I DID have some shares of a high-profile stock as part of my employee benefits. The company I worked for would announce when a stock was going to split and we were basically put on notice that we were NOT to divulge this information to ANYONE. We weren't even allowed to discuss it at our desks in case a customer on the phone overheard the conversation. Martha Stewart, on the other hand, got caught and while she did receive a jail sentence, someone like myself would have received a much harsher punishment.
In the Michael Jackson case, we have not only an accuser, but an eyewitness that witnessed the act. The lawyers involved managed to manipulate the jury into thinking that the trial was actually about which witness gave the best performance (And the Oscar for best performance in the Michael Jackson trial goes to...) rather than keeping the focus on the crime itself. If a person testifies over and over again that something happened, does it make a difference how many times it happened? The simple fact is, kids get nervous especially when thrown into a situation like that. For the kid to say that it happened three times, then later say it happened four times doesn't make him a liar - it makes him a kid that is scared out of his wits. Of course, the defense said that since the kid changed the number of times that it happened, that naturally means he's a liar and that the jury shouldn't believe him. In the meantime, a modern-day Leatherface (c'mon, look at all that surgery he's had!) is sitting there grinning inside, knowing that he will get away with it. If an average citizen of the US of A were to be brought up on these same charges, complete with an eyewitness that saw him molesting a child, that jury would have reached a guilty verdict within an hour. (Not that it matters, since the courts seem to like to release child molestors with a stern warning of "Now don't do that again!" - people, it's a DISEASE they have. They can't help it. They are sick - it's not something they can control, therefore it's almost a given that they will do it again. Life sentences are the solution here - or execution. But I digress...)
Back to my original point, while Mr. Ebbers is a very important and powerful person, he does not have celebrity status. He's not a household name (at least not in my house...and I just checked with several of my friends and they haven't heard of him either) therefore the jury had no qualms in convicting him for his crimes. Some people will say "Yeah, but he stole billions of dollars! Thats pretty bad!" - well, my friends, so is murder, insider trading, and child molestation. The fact is that crimes should be tried equally, regardless of the criminal's status in society, but that just isn't the case. Ebbers' only mistake was not getting a guest shot on Baywatch or appearing on the Surreal Life. If either of these had happened, society as a whole would have lifted him upon their collective shoulders, believed him to be perfect and incapable of doing wrong, and when it all came down to wire, everyone would have had a good laugh over it while shaking their finger at him as if to say "That crazy Bernie - he's always pulling stunts like this! Let's go get a beer."
Come to think of it, I think I'll go get a beer now. Cheers.
My first thought on reading this was "Who?" Then I realized that's why he was was found guilty - he's not a household name. If 95% of the populace has never heard of you, or couldn't pick you out of a lineup, your chances of getting convicted of ANY crime, despite a complete lack of evidence, goes up exponentially.
Three high-profile cases come to mind: OJ Simpson, Martha Stewart (who WAS convicted, but received a lighter sentence due to her celebrity status) and the infamous Michael Jackson cases.
Before I go any further, I should probably preface my comments with this disclaimer: I am not stating that I think these people are innocent or guilty - just that if a non-celeb were to be put in their position, the verdict would have been guilty and the punishments more severe.
Let's say yours truly is speeding down the freeway, being chased by the police because my wife was found dead at the house. The officers pull me over, arrest me, find her blood in my car, as well as other evidence that may or may not link me to the crime. Guess what? I'm going to jail. I'm no celebrity, no one will really miss me anyway, and its a good way for the police to improve their "solved homicide" count.
What if I get caught participating in insider trading? Granted, I don't play the stock market, but a few years back I DID have some shares of a high-profile stock as part of my employee benefits. The company I worked for would announce when a stock was going to split and we were basically put on notice that we were NOT to divulge this information to ANYONE. We weren't even allowed to discuss it at our desks in case a customer on the phone overheard the conversation. Martha Stewart, on the other hand, got caught and while she did receive a jail sentence, someone like myself would have received a much harsher punishment.
In the Michael Jackson case, we have not only an accuser, but an eyewitness that witnessed the act. The lawyers involved managed to manipulate the jury into thinking that the trial was actually about which witness gave the best performance (And the Oscar for best performance in the Michael Jackson trial goes to...) rather than keeping the focus on the crime itself. If a person testifies over and over again that something happened, does it make a difference how many times it happened? The simple fact is, kids get nervous especially when thrown into a situation like that. For the kid to say that it happened three times, then later say it happened four times doesn't make him a liar - it makes him a kid that is scared out of his wits. Of course, the defense said that since the kid changed the number of times that it happened, that naturally means he's a liar and that the jury shouldn't believe him. In the meantime, a modern-day Leatherface (c'mon, look at all that surgery he's had!) is sitting there grinning inside, knowing that he will get away with it. If an average citizen of the US of A were to be brought up on these same charges, complete with an eyewitness that saw him molesting a child, that jury would have reached a guilty verdict within an hour. (Not that it matters, since the courts seem to like to release child molestors with a stern warning of "Now don't do that again!" - people, it's a DISEASE they have. They can't help it. They are sick - it's not something they can control, therefore it's almost a given that they will do it again. Life sentences are the solution here - or execution. But I digress...)
Back to my original point, while Mr. Ebbers is a very important and powerful person, he does not have celebrity status. He's not a household name (at least not in my house...and I just checked with several of my friends and they haven't heard of him either) therefore the jury had no qualms in convicting him for his crimes. Some people will say "Yeah, but he stole billions of dollars! Thats pretty bad!" - well, my friends, so is murder, insider trading, and child molestation. The fact is that crimes should be tried equally, regardless of the criminal's status in society, but that just isn't the case. Ebbers' only mistake was not getting a guest shot on Baywatch or appearing on the Surreal Life. If either of these had happened, society as a whole would have lifted him upon their collective shoulders, believed him to be perfect and incapable of doing wrong, and when it all came down to wire, everyone would have had a good laugh over it while shaking their finger at him as if to say "That crazy Bernie - he's always pulling stunts like this! Let's go get a beer."
Come to think of it, I think I'll go get a beer now. Cheers.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home