6 ms·

US Federal laws are enforced vigourously enough that I think the burden of proof is on those who claim they are not enforced. Whether the laws are effective at

by frank2 7y ago

US Federal laws are enforced vigourously enough that I think the burden of proof is on those who claim they are not enforced. Whether the laws are effective at preventing the behavior they are designed to prevent is another story.

decebalus1 7y ago
This book https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute... has lots of proof.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  That's not a good point of evidence. The laws in question are regarding government employees self-dealing by awarding contracts in exchange for employment/favors later. >Why were no bankers put in prison after the financial crisis of 2008? This question is enough to dismiss the entire book outright. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by a systemic risk modelling failure. This led to banks relying too heavily on the stability of mortgages. Bad business decisions are not criminal, that's why the bankers weren't arrested. Here are some other questions for you: Why were no energy industry employees/CEOs put in prison after the 1973/1979 energy crises? Why were no tech people arrested after the dot-com bust? Entire industries have systemic failures that impact broad society. That is not evidence of a crime and implying so in a leading question to your book means pandering to a specific political view or just gullible people.
  - decebalus1 7y ago
    You're conflating issues here. Fraud is still criminal. Some made bad business decisions, some have committed fraud. Some have made money, some have lost. The ones which made bad business decisions lost money. That's not what the book is about. > That's not a good point of evidence. The laws in question are regarding government employees self-dealing by awarding contracts in exchange for employment/favors later. This happens all the time. It's called the 'Revolving door'. It's not that hard to prove, it's just that federal prosecutors don't bother instrumenting the cases, unless there is political gain from doing so. The laws in question I was replying to, were 'Federal laws', not specific to conflicts of interest, but even so.. I'm not advocating for the book, I read it and found it both interesting and representative of the recent enforcement efforts by the government which nobody can deny have been sub-par. Most of this is because of the broken incentive structures for prosecutors. Take for example the Equifax breach in which only two employees have been indicted and convicted of insider trading, with penalties totaling a whopping 160k. That's some vigorous enforcement right there. Another examples of vigorous enforcement is what happened to the tobacco executives after lying to Congress. Or.. other people who also lied to Congress https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-... So yeah.. vigorous.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
Why do you assume (or know) US federal laws are enforced vigorously? I see almost no evidence of this, and an abundance of evidence to the contrary. As another commenter pointed out - there is an entire book describing this epidemic in detail.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  >and an abundance of evidence to the contrary Then please provide us with a little. It's interesting you're able to see evidence of major federal offenses and no major news outlets or law enforcement agencies have done anything about it. Sounds like quite the conspiracy.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    I don't even need to bring up obscure cases or examples, just look to the president. Do you honestly think he's going to be prosecuted (I realize he has been impeached) for any of his offenses?
    - dhsudeuwu 7y ago
      So you don't need obscure examples but the first one you reach for is highly political and applies to one of the most protected federal workers? No one with any habit of studying us law is under the illusion that the POTUS is bound by the same rules as other federal employees specifically because the law itself has many exceptions for that specific role. If there's so many examples then surely you can find another that isn't tied to the Trump administration.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        I gave an example which you don't dispute and I referenced an entire book full of specific examples - it seems unlikely I'm going to persuade you of anything (the fact that you made an account just to reply to this comment doesn't make me think you're going to stick around either) since the goalposts keep moving. But sure - how about the Scientologists being given a pass for tax fraud, extortion, and a litany of other illegal activities? Or is this another unfair example, because Scientologists are also untouchable by regular laws? My entire point is that the "untouchables" are the problem - there should be no untouchable class of people at all. The fact that the elected leader of the US is considered above the law is moronic. He should face higher scrutiny, not less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t... I'm done responding to comments in this thread.

by frank2 7y ago

decebalus1 7y ago

This book https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute... has lots of proof.

pathseeker 7y ago
That's not a good point of evidence. The laws in question are regarding government employees self-dealing by awarding contracts in exchange for employment/favors later. >Why were no bankers put in prison after the financial crisis of 2008? This question is enough to dismiss the entire book outright. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by a systemic risk modelling failure. This led to banks relying too heavily on the stability of mortgages. Bad business decisions are not criminal, that's why the bankers weren't arrested. Here are some other questions for you: Why were no energy industry employees/CEOs put in prison after the 1973/1979 energy crises? Why were no tech people arrested after the dot-com bust? Entire industries have systemic failures that impact broad society. That is not evidence of a crime and implying so in a leading question to your book means pandering to a specific political view or just gullible people.
- decebalus1 7y ago
  You're conflating issues here. Fraud is still criminal. Some made bad business decisions, some have committed fraud. Some have made money, some have lost. The ones which made bad business decisions lost money. That's not what the book is about. > That's not a good point of evidence. The laws in question are regarding government employees self-dealing by awarding contracts in exchange for employment/favors later. This happens all the time. It's called the 'Revolving door'. It's not that hard to prove, it's just that federal prosecutors don't bother instrumenting the cases, unless there is political gain from doing so. The laws in question I was replying to, were 'Federal laws', not specific to conflicts of interest, but even so.. I'm not advocating for the book, I read it and found it both interesting and representative of the recent enforcement efforts by the government which nobody can deny have been sub-par. Most of this is because of the broken incentive structures for prosecutors. Take for example the Equifax breach in which only two employees have been indicted and convicted of insider trading, with penalties totaling a whopping 160k. That's some vigorous enforcement right there. Another examples of vigorous enforcement is what happened to the tobacco executives after lying to Congress. Or.. other people who also lied to Congress https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-... So yeah.. vigorous.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

Why do you assume (or know) US federal laws are enforced vigorously? I see almost no evidence of this, and an abundance of evidence to the contrary. As another commenter pointed out - there is an entire book describing this epidemic in detail.

pathseeker 7y ago
>and an abundance of evidence to the contrary Then please provide us with a little. It's interesting you're able to see evidence of major federal offenses and no major news outlets or law enforcement agencies have done anything about it. Sounds like quite the conspiracy.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  I don't even need to bring up obscure cases or examples, just look to the president. Do you honestly think he's going to be prosecuted (I realize he has been impeached) for any of his offenses?
  - dhsudeuwu 7y ago
    So you don't need obscure examples but the first one you reach for is highly political and applies to one of the most protected federal workers? No one with any habit of studying us law is under the illusion that the POTUS is bound by the same rules as other federal employees specifically because the law itself has many exceptions for that specific role. If there's so many examples then surely you can find another that isn't tied to the Trump administration.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      I gave an example which you don't dispute and I referenced an entire book full of specific examples - it seems unlikely I'm going to persuade you of anything (the fact that you made an account just to reply to this comment doesn't make me think you're going to stick around either) since the goalposts keep moving. But sure - how about the Scientologists being given a pass for tax fraud, extortion, and a litany of other illegal activities? Or is this another unfair example, because Scientologists are also untouchable by regular laws? My entire point is that the "untouchables" are the problem - there should be no untouchable class of people at all. The fact that the elected leader of the US is considered above the law is moronic. He should face higher scrutiny, not less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t... I'm done responding to comments in this thread.