3 ms·

If the evidence is so damning, why settle? Why does the government seem so quick to settle when a company does something wrong, but lays down the hammer on citi

by ajays 15y ago

If the evidence is so damning, why settle? Why does the government seem so quick to settle when a company does something wrong, but lays down the hammer on citizens who do something wrong[1]? [1] http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/08/young-woman-sentenced-to-twelve-years-for-selling-31-worth-of-marijuana-in-oklahoma/ http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/08/young-woman-sentenced-to-... PS: yes, I know it was reduced later; but still it's at 8 years.

jm4 15y ago
I don't have a problem with the government settling. Are they supposed to spend money fighting a lawsuit for years just to squeeze some more money out of them? Then what? Some employees that had nothing to do with it get laid off to keep up the bottom line? I think the point here is to stop the behavior and give out just enough punishment to keep them from doing it again, but not excessive so as to damage the business. In this case, the problem is the companies were colluding to deprive people of jobs and to lower salaries. The desired outcome is to ensure a fair hiring and salary negotiation process. A settlement achieves that with minimal cost to the government and minimum collateral damage to the tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it. Businesses and individuals are completely different and there should be different standards for dealing out punishments. That said, the case you mentioned seems absurd and unfair. The best answer I can give is that the government-- when it comes to the justice system-- is not a single entity. Justice is not dealt out uniformly. There are many, many different people with different views prosecuting cases. Some are more lenient than others, within the legislated guidelines. Different regions have different prevailing standards for justice. Even in the same town you have ball breaker judges and ones with a reputation for letting people off easy. If the law provides guidelines you can be sure that people will be spread out all across the spectrum of what is allowed. Getting 12 years for selling pot sucks. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in her shoes. If I were a judge I wouldn't think of giving out that kind of sentence. I would go so far as to say I think the judge who did is wrong, even if he did give a sentence allowed by law. But I'm also not the kind of dumbass who would sell pot. If you do stupid, obviously illegal things you put yourself at the mercy of a person who might just throw your ass in a hole for the next decade.
tzs 15y ago
People are harder to change than companies.
hga 15y ago
Errr, perhaps it's because this is civil matter ("lawsuit"), not a criminal case?

by ajays 15y ago

jm4 15y ago

I don't have a problem with the government settling. Are they supposed to spend money fighting a lawsuit for years just to squeeze some more money out of them? Then what? Some employees that had nothing to do with it get laid off to keep up the bottom line? I think the point here is to stop the behavior and give out just enough punishment to keep them from doing it again, but not excessive so as to damage the business. In this case, the problem is the companies were colluding to deprive people of jobs and to lower salaries. The desired outcome is to ensure a fair hiring and salary negotiation process. A settlement achieves that with minimal cost to the government and minimum collateral damage to the tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it. Businesses and individuals are completely different and there should be different standards for dealing out punishments. That said, the case you mentioned seems absurd and unfair. The best answer I can give is that the government-- when it comes to the justice system-- is not a single entity. Justice is not dealt out uniformly. There are many, many different people with different views prosecuting cases. Some are more lenient than others, within the legislated guidelines. Different regions have different prevailing standards for justice. Even in the same town you have ball breaker judges and ones with a reputation for letting people off easy. If the law provides guidelines you can be sure that people will be spread out all across the spectrum of what is allowed. Getting 12 years for selling pot sucks. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in her shoes. If I were a judge I wouldn't think of giving out that kind of sentence. I would go so far as to say I think the judge who did is wrong, even if he did give a sentence allowed by law. But I'm also not the kind of dumbass who would sell pot. If you do stupid, obviously illegal things you put yourself at the mercy of a person who might just throw your ass in a hole for the next decade.

tzs 15y ago

People are harder to change than companies.

hga 15y ago

Errr, perhaps it's because this is civil matter ("lawsuit"), not a criminal case?