4 ms·
I have a hard time seeing arguments against the SEC taking action-- especially here-- as anything but overcomplicated rationalizations rooted in a personal ador
by tbabb 8y ago
I have a hard time seeing arguments against the SEC taking action-- especially here-- as anything but overcomplicated rationalizations rooted in a personal adoration of Elon Musk. Basically, "I like Elon Musk and so I don't want anything bad to happen to him."
But (a) laws don't work like that (b) selectively enforcing rules (especially those designed to prevent fraud and deception) isn't justice or ethics, and (c) he genuinely did something wrong-- multiple things wrong. He deserves to face adverse consequences for those choices.
- miemo 8y agoThis reminds me of the heart surgeon student who avoided jail time for attacking her partner with a knife because she 'showed potential'. People are perhaps sympathetic to Elon because he shows more potential than other CEOs, no? Did the judge in the case above show leniency because 'he liked her'? For b) rather than selectively enforcing rules, this would be an example of discretionary punishment, which is absolutely a part of justice and ethics, as in the case above. Some could interpret your argument to support mandatory minimum sentencing, which many don't believe works.
- justtopost 8y agoDisgressionary punishment is based on the severity of the crime, not the 'potential' of the person. You just described bias.
- ricardobeat 8y agoshould be. In reality it is at the discretion of the judge.