So a rich man, Donte Stallworth, kills a pedestrian and gets 30 days in jail and a whole bunch of probation. One crime, one victim.
Bernie Madoff steals millions from many and gets 150 years in prison. One crime as well, though I understand there were many charges (one for each victim of his scheme).
This leaves a really sour taste in my mouth. It isn't fair that Madoff gets more jail time than Stallworth. Listen, I think Madoff should be punished, but isn't a crime that results in the death of a person a worse crime than stealing? Shouldn't Stallworth get more jail time for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian than Madoff gets for stealing?
The manhattan judge Chin said he wanted to send a message. The message I'm getting is that stealing money is a worse crime than driving drunk and killing someone.
8 comments:
justice is blind, deaf, and dumb..... no one should receive 150 year's for stealing - granted he stole ALOT of money, from a lot of people, but its theft, no one died. 150 year's make no sense when someone kills a man, drunk driving, and gets 30 days and 10 years probation? where is the justice in that =\
I don't mind that he got 150. I do mind that some of the worst killers out there have gotten less time. And in this case, Stallworth should have gotten life.
The only problem I have with the 150 is that I worry that it's them making an example of him. It's like when they went after Martha Stewart, and while I don't think she was clean, there were a hell of a lot of people dirtier than she out there.
good point!
Mike Vick got 2 years for killing dogs. Are we to believe that a dog's life is more valuable than a human's life?
There are three things everyone agrees on:
1) Ice cream is delicious
2) Puppies are cute
3) Bad things are wrong.
Vick got caught violating two of those tenets. Had he been making roosters fight, he would have gotten a slap on the wrist.
Not saying he didn't deserve what he got, but it's a great example of how often the sentence isn't a reflection of the law broken but the public mood. People were angry at Madoff, so he got the book. People were angry at Vick, he got the book. Stallworth wasn't as "sexy", so he was able to plead his way out of it. Now, if he hit a nun with a stroller full of puppies, on her way to get ice cream...
I like to think that this is what happens when judges and DA's are elected, but everyone in the Madoff case was an appointment.
I think stealing is less bad than killing dogs and killing a person while drunk is worse than dog killing. That's my scale. I know it isn't that simple, but taking a person's life should be the worst crime (barring self-defense, etc.).
Okay...do we need to revisit this in light of Stallworth's suspension.
If the justice system decides that a crime is worth x, for good or for ill, is it the league's job to fill in the blanks, if you will, to act as a second layer of justice.
On one hand, I say yes, simply because if I did something that brought disrepute on my name then I could see why my company would want to let me go.
On the other hand, should the league be looking into the public reaction and say that "Well, they want him punished more"? That I'm not so sure about.
And then, of course, should the law interfere in the league, like with Bertuzzi (I say yes yes a million times yes, but know where that can lead).
Post a Comment