She should certainly be punished, and made an example of, but this to me would cry out for jury nullification. There is way too much prosecutorial overreach, particularly with feds.
14 thoughts on “Lori Laughlin”
Comments are closed.
She should certainly be punished, and made an example of, but this to me would cry out for jury nullification. There is way too much prosecutorial overreach, particularly with feds.
Comments are closed.
I was explaining to my Brazilian wife that a “federal crime” not only implies a crime against federal law, but for some reason it also seems to mean that the penalty is going to be much more severe than the same crime prosecuted at the state level. Is it just me or is this the common use of the term?
Might be just you, though there is an expression “You don’t have to make a federal case out of it.”
I think that saying came from a time when the federal government had a lot smaller role in the lives of citizens.
So a “federal case” was much more unusual.
Federal inmates are generally not eligible for parole.
At this point, I’m thinking jury nullification should be occurring on many federal cases. As for Loughlin, I’ve always thought the university administrators should be the ones facing long sentences. The administrators actions created the market for buyers like Loughlin while also destroying the value and reputation of university degrees.
Nothing new there. Tried separately in the Teapot Dome scandal, Albert Fall was convicted of accepting a bribe from Edward Doheny, while a the next year Doheny was acquitted of bribing Fall.
But it is interesting that there seems to be no interest in going after the supply side in this.
I started out thinking that Hoffman’s two weeks knocked down to 12 days was about right. Then I wondered if anyone else caught dead to rights bribing an suborning fraud in 6-7 figures would get off with less than years. The 45 years isn’t going to happen but a couple might.
She can’t argue it didn’t happen or that she didn’t know it was illegal. A jury might not find guilt on all counts but I’d be surprised if they gave her a total pass.
or that she didn’t know it was illegal
What federal laws did she violate? I don’t take the prosecutors’ list as definitive, shall we say.
Wire fraud for one. Any crime that crosses a state line becomes federal. A phone call talking about bribery is enough. Probably federal funds involved at USC. I’m sure the indictment has a list.
Still not certain why this is a crime. “Bribery of a federal official” assumes that an employee of a private company is a federal official.
Is this because some of the building and/or the employee’s salary was paid for by government grants?
To be honest, I think she should serve some prison time. I think the other one getting 12 days was getting off way too easy.
I also think that the people taking the bribes should be the ones hardest hit. They are the ones who created and run this racket.
As for Laughlin, I think it’s an abomination that there is such vast disparity between a guilty plea and a not guilty plea. This is putting a gun to the accused’s heads, nothing less. I think six months to a year is about right for a crime like this.
If I was on the jury, and I knew they were planning on sentencing her to decades, I’d vote to acquit, just like I would if they were seeking the death penalty for jaywalking. .
I think one could tour the Harvard campus and find buildings that are there primarily because an alum needed a legacy admission… This story is as old as college itself… I’m reminded of this from this:
http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/executions-the-guillotine-and-the-french-revolution.html
Some punishment rituals were incredibly elaborate affairs with multiple participants. One example comes from the Inquisition which employed the auto-de-fé, or act of faith, in their execution of prisoners. This spectacle offered viewers a hint of what the day of judgment might be like. Those condemned by the Inquisition were marched through town, often wearing a ritual robe (the san benito) or holding an unlit candle as a sign of their lack of faith. At the end of the long procession, the prisoners’ fates were announced and the sentences were carried out. Everyone in the community was expected to attend events of this type. Those who did not could be seen as potentially suspect themselves.
When I first heard this story, I thought the same thing. Isn’t this how colleges got big time alums to donate? Alas, the difference here is that the administrators pocketed the money rather than give it to the university. One more reason they should be the face of this story and facing longer terms in jail.
I’d say a year would be fair, so long as the bribed officials got at least three years.
On the other hand, I see no reason why, for a private institution, buying admission should be illegal. My Dad used to say the Priory was where the Rockefellers used to send their idiot sons to be turned into polished gentlemen. It didn’t work (e.g., Nelson) but we already know Ivy League schools are not egalitarian open-admissions schools peopled by the best and brightest, so what difference does it make?