12 ms·
Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal
- denago 6y agoseems silly to send people to prison for this
- microtherion 6y agoAs a comparison, a homeless mother who deliberately enrolled her 5-year-old in the wrong school district was sentenced to 5 years in prison: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-her-191400017.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-he... I would argue that the kind of bribery at the heart of this case is considerably worse, as it fosters a mentality that everything is for sale at the right price.
- CinchWrench 6y agoEverything _is_ for sale at the right price. So the only problem here is that they're being honest about it. There are several precedents that come to mind though, prostitution is one.
- driverdan 6y agoWhile the charges are absurd people need to stop referencing this case. She was given 5 years for the drug charges so the judge tacked on a concurrent 5 year sentence for the school charges. It has no material impact. If she didn't have the drug charges she wouldn't have been given that sentence.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoIt has an impact on parole boards.
- nrmitchi 6y agoDoes that not have the impact of setting a precedent the next time that someone in the region is charged with the same thing? "Well, last time, the defendant was given 5 years. Therefore, a fair sentence is 5 years". Tacking a 5 year sentence on to anything because "it doesn't matter" seems exceptionally short-sighted.
- gnicholas 6y agosnopes has more background on this comparison, which isn't quite as simple as it is sometimes portrayed: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tanya-mcdowell-felicity-huffman/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tanya-mcdowell-felicity-hu...
- diob 6y agoNeither should be offenses that cause someone to go to prison. Criminal justice reform is so badly needed in this country.
- ysavir 6y agoEh. On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the wealthy have proved that unless prison is a possible punishment, they're willing and eager to repeatedly pay away their crimes.
- glaucon 6y agoTotally, unless they're doing time it's just a business expense.
- onemiketwelve 6y agoWhich is why I like the concept of percentage fines rather than constants
- ysavir 6y agoFine idea on paper, but it opens up the doors for all sorts of accounting games. You have to keep in mind that the wealthy will always afford more capable and less ethical lawyers and accountants than the public.
- sumedh 6y agoSo do you think cheating is ok and should not be punished?
- awillen 6y agoRemember when this was the biggest symbol of corruption in the US? I miss those times...
- tunesmith 6y agoStiffer sentence than Felicity Huffman, who got 14 days (she served 11), 30k fine, 250 hours of community service.
- anonAndOn 6y agoDidn't Felicity plea bargain pretty quickly and accept her fate? Lori refused the initial plea bargain to which the prosecutors responded by adding more charges. Oops!
- glaucon 6y agoTo a non-USAian such as myself it's just so marvellous that a case involving, a sort of, corruption has the resulting penalty affected by a "plea bargain". "Plea bargains", a strange mixture of government approved gambling and trial by ordeal making a travesty of the justice system.
- tunesmith 6y agoGenerally it makes a little sense to me in this case - accept accountability sooner, get a more lenient penalty. Not sure if that is more common or rare in other cultures?
- Supermancho 6y agoIn Germany, plea bargains are not common practice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Germany
- bleepblorp 6y agoI have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for finding a cheaper way to get their children into selective colleges than paying the ten million+ selective colleges charge a for legacy admission.
- microtherion 6y agoTechnically, they are being prosecuted for paying off somebody who was not entitled to give their children preferential admissions treatment, while if you're donating to the university, they ARE entitled to give preferential treatment. But I agree, on a moral level, that legacy admissions are an odious practice, and particularly so when tied to donations.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> while if you're donating to the university, they ARE entitled to give preferential treatment It’s not a donation if you’re getting something in return, e.g. preferential treatment.
- js2 6y agoYou don't see a difference between bribing someone under the table to get only your child in, vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child? The rules may be unfair but at least in the latter case, everyone knows that they are up against.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child? Not a donation if the donor is receiving something in exchange.
- rumcajz 6y agoI have hard time understanding what goes for the bribery in US. Apparently, a lot of stuff that would be considered corruption in Europe is just business as normal in the US. In this particular case I would guess that what they did would be considered OK. Apparently it wasn't. Can someone from the US comment on where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago> where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies? It scales proportional to your wealth. The varsity blues parents were just too poor to issue a proper bribe.
- rumcajz 6y agoI've meant what is considered morally acceptable by an average American. I guess that you are describing who manages to get away with the corruption, rather than asserting that bribery by the rich is considered more acceptable that the bribery by the poor.
- svachalek 6y agoIt’s more that “philanthropy” and “lobbying” are acceptable while “bribery” is not, even though sometimes the distinction is a pretty blurry line.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoIt’s more like everyone tries to get away with as much fraud as possible under the guise of plausible deniability, which “philanthropy” and “lobbying” provide. Let’s see all this “philanthropy” if tax deductible donations have to be anonymous.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
- icantspellwell 6y agoFirst, we don't know whether the children of the guilty were kicked out of school. So, the only victims here are students and athletes who lost an earned spot in university. But they don't have any agency here. The universities administration has no skin in the game - they get paid, the endowments are bountiful, and the professors keep on suffering on. There may even be a backslaps and high five deal to recapture any "lost" income. The guilty here are resourceful and powerful, so really, the court case is more of a negotiation at best. Kiss the hand of the king and receive a small slap on the wrist sort of a deal. The government has bigger fish to fry than worry about fairness.
- downrightmike 6y agoThe university is trying to protect its reputation and goodwill. The trial helps as a warning to other parents: cough up the money the way they want and your kids get in, or risk the lottery.
- tibbydudeza 6y agoPrediction ... she will be released on good behavior ... 14 days later.
- j45 6y agoWere any parties receiving bribes similarly identified, charged and convicted? I can’t recall hearing much about that.
- pers0n 6y agoShe got off easy with 2 months. A black lady got 20 yrs for falsifying info to get her child(ren) into a school system
- supernova87a 6y agoThe most entertaining argument I read about this whole scandal is that it wasn't fraud, it was theft, and that's why the US Attorney is going after it on behalf of the colleges. Theft from the colleges. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-the-right-person https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha... "...Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the charges: “There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, and I'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.” Level playing field! Here is another thing he said less than a minute later: “We’re not talking about donating a building so that a school’s more likely to take your son or your daughter. We’re talking about deception and fraud.” There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, except for the extremely well-known one where you donate a building in exchange for getting your kid in! “Lol just donate a building like a real rich person,” the U.S. Attorney almost said. Josh Barro’s analysis on Twitter is exactly right: The admissions slots were stolen from the colleges and resold on the black market. Which is a crime, for good reason. We don’t have to act like there wasn’t a legal, primary market for the admissions slots already. I think the key is not to understand this as a crime against other applicants, or the public, or “fairness.” It’s a crime against the schools. It is not about fairness; it is about theft. Selective colleges have admissions spots that they want to award in particular ways. They want to award some based on academic factors; they want to award others based on athletic skill; they want to award others in exchange for cash, but—and this is crucial—really a whole lot of cash. Buildings are not cheap.
- jmole 6y agoI mean - economically speaking - why wouldn't a college take a student in exchange for a building? It would be unfair to not allow this, no? I think the unfairness argument should be taken up a level - it's unfair that someone can even have the wealth to do this.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoColleges should compete for students based on the number of endowed buildings and sports facilities, and not on irrelevant metrics like academics. In fact there should be a two-speed college system - one for very wealthy people who like having buildings and stadiums named after them, and a separate vocational academic system for those who can't afford to operate on that level. Studying would be optional on the fast track. Academic life would become a round of partying, networking, and assortative mating, and efficiency would be enhanced by shortening it by a year or two. This would increase student throughput and further boost the property portfolios of the high status educational institutions. With this system everyone would know exactly what their money was buying, and immoral attempts to cheat the system would become very easy to spot.
- cwhiz 6y agoThe most amusing thing about this is that the kids didn’t fail out. Kids couldn’t qualify to get in but they had no problem doing the coursework. Really laying bare that you’re paying for the diploma, and not the education itself.
- technotony 6y agoDoes anyone know why the husband got 2.5x more penalty than the wife? Was the court able to prove it was his idea or he was somehow more guilty?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIt's a plea deal, he plead guilty to more crimes. >Loughlin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and Giannulli pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and honest services wire and mail fraud https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-plea/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-p...
- onionisafruit 6y agoProsecutor probably wanted one of them to plead to the higher charge and didn’t care which one.
- bitL 6y agoWhy weren't they both punished evenly? Seems like a biased decision. Is it because Lori is a "celebrity"?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIt's a plea deal, he plead guilty to more crimes. It is likely they discussed it. >Loughlin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and Giannulli pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and honest services wire and mail fraud https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-plea/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-p...
- naveen99 6y agoIt would be funny if the irs decided to go after all the people who legitimately donated To the development office to get their children admission, but took the full charitable tax deduction and didn’t subtract the fair market value for the admission... even funnier if they clawed back the universities tax free status or atleast back taxes on the donations as well. Which brings me to, Wikileaks or someone should publish the FMV of quid pro quo admissions charity by college.
- darkerside 6y agoThis whole thing strikes me as prosecuting drug users instead of the dealers. If someone is selling this, I promise there are going to be people looking to buy it. College admissions is just too emotionally fraught for people to make clear decisions consistently. I assume it edged its way from plausible deniability to mutual culpability in a very subtle way. Amd I believe the fraudster was eventually colluding with the FBI. How is it not entrapment?
- tempsy 6y agoThis case just annoys me - this is hardly justice - she will probably be released due good behavior or covid in 2 weeks. The amount of tax payer money that went into investigating and prosecuting the case far outweigh the reward here.
- TrackerFF 6y agoIt's interesting - you read about David E. Shaw, that donated millions to ALL his target universities - just to cover all options. His kids got in (Yale IIRC) - completely legal. Then you have these parents, that paid money to some corrupt worker, and it's jail time.
- mike503 6y agoMore time than most Trump cronies seem to get.