4 ms·

Your argument is weird. The fact that people are not just good or bad but in between is exactly why I said the jurors felt bad giving this verdict. They saw Gup

by soupboy 14y ago

Your argument is weird. The fact that people are not just good or bad but in between is exactly why I said the jurors felt bad giving this verdict. They saw Gupta as someone who has been close to good most of his life (he was at McKinsey for 40 years without a single blemish on his record!). And then you somehow invert the your own point and say that you should not feel sorry for Gupta because he is apparently evil like Hitler? And none of your points make me personally feel anything good about Hitler. Compare that with Gupta's life and tell me seriously if that is a fair comparison: - orphaned at 18 with very little money - studied hard and ranked 15th in the entire country and got admitted to IIT - Got an MBA from Harvard - Worked at McKinsey till 2011 making to the the post of Managing Director (the first MD of McKinsey from outside US) - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta#Philanthropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta#Philanthropy] See this Bloomberg article which pretty much says something similar - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-15/in-gupta-jurors-saw-american-dream-and-convicted-anyway.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-15/in-gupta-jurors-saw.... But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot.

joering2 14y ago
Too bad you giving up on arguing so quick. Juror can say whatever they want to but the bottom line is is that when you in front of jury, they need to judge you based on your case merits, not whether you did or did not do something good or bad in your life. This is simple irrelevant to case in front of the judge. Check the case of Casey Anthony, for example. She has been giving sleeping pills to her daughter while partying carelessly in the town. She is a bad person and was terrible mother, but yet importunately there was not enough evidence to sentence her. The jury judged based on evidence presented, not because whether she was a good or bad person. And I believe its a fair system. Otherwise one could have a spat with another and become a priest, teach and help people for 50 years, then blew his opponent head and be found not guilty because he did so many good things in his life. It doesnt work like that. Whether he was orphan or not, studied to rank 15th or not is truly irrelevant. There is hundred million people throughout the modern world history in similar position than you never heard of (orphan, no parents, brilliant, good grades, etc). But the big different is that Gupta is a sentenced and convicted _criminal_ and they are not! Further, I cannot compare Gupta's life to Hitler's, because the latter is dead, and Gupta is "not done yet", so its like comparing apples to oranges. But let's play this game. If we would jump into Time Machine and went back in time before September 1939, having the same conversation you would be beaten down by 90% of voters that were with Hitler. I don't know about you, but surely I wouldn't like to stand against 90% of population of a country like Germany. Probably by the end of day number 2, arguing with 90% of population you would be hanging on the pole with hands tighten behind your back. But I agree what happened next, that's a different story. > But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot. We all not that different, my friend. We all had the same grand-grand-parents.

by soupboy 14y ago

joering2 14y ago

Too bad you giving up on arguing so quick. Juror can say whatever they want to but the bottom line is is that when you in front of jury, they need to judge you based on your case merits, not whether you did or did not do something good or bad in your life. This is simple irrelevant to case in front of the judge. Check the case of Casey Anthony, for example. She has been giving sleeping pills to her daughter while partying carelessly in the town. She is a bad person and was terrible mother, but yet importunately there was not enough evidence to sentence her. The jury judged based on evidence presented, not because whether she was a good or bad person. And I believe its a fair system. Otherwise one could have a spat with another and become a priest, teach and help people for 50 years, then blew his opponent head and be found not guilty because he did so many good things in his life. It doesnt work like that. Whether he was orphan or not, studied to rank 15th or not is truly irrelevant. There is hundred million people throughout the modern world history in similar position than you never heard of (orphan, no parents, brilliant, good grades, etc). But the big different is that Gupta is a sentenced and convicted _criminal_ and they are not! Further, I cannot compare Gupta's life to Hitler's, because the latter is dead, and Gupta is "not done yet", so its like comparing apples to oranges. But let's play this game. If we would jump into Time Machine and went back in time before September 1939, having the same conversation you would be beaten down by 90% of voters that were with Hitler. I don't know about you, but surely I wouldn't like to stand against 90% of population of a country like Germany. Probably by the end of day number 2, arguing with 90% of population you would be hanging on the pole with hands tighten behind your back. But I agree what happened next, that's a different story. > But I sense that we are different people, so arguing further with you will be moot. We all not that different, my friend. We all had the same grand-grand-parents.