Should The Wealthy Be Above The Law?

Some of you may have read this story from last year http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20101108/NEWS/101109802/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Basically Martin Joel Erzinger, a wealthy financial manager hit a bicyclist with his car, permanently crippling him, then left him for dead. The Judge dropped all felony charges because he's a financial manager and a felony may jeopardize his job and the money of his clients.

Now here's more of the same. http://www.dailycamera.com/broomfield-news/ci_18335019

Curtis Hilty, a rich Realtor drugged and raped his 20 year old babysitter resulting in two felony charges and a potential life sentence. The judge and his family felt that the sentencing laws were too vague for somebody that had made a "mistake", dropped the felony charges, and sentenced him to 30 days in the city jail and 20 years of probation.

This all reminds me of Clarence Burns, a rich wife beater who was sentenced to two years of evenings and weekends in jail for pumping six bullets into his wife's head.

So here's my question. In this age when the most retarded, laughable concepts such as nullification, social Darwinism, Segregation, Racism, McCarthyism etc. are being given new consideration, should wealthy people be given a pass for committing felonies since i could cause financial harm to a community?

If we let rich people commit crimes it would encourage them to live in America, which is good for the economy!

Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should? No.

Are they? Yes.

This is the kind of socialist thinking that leads to gulags.

Interestingly enough in most communist countries you can replace "wealthy person" with "party member in good standing" and its pretty much the same deal.

China: kill in numbers that make Hitler look like a bleeding heart, have apologists in the US say "no no, they're all reformed now" for the sake of good trade relations.

yes

All three of those cases happened in my home state but then again, I could also point out that Paris Hilton isn't currently serving a 20 years for multiple counts of drug trafficking.

No they should NOT but money itself is above the law.

The only ones that are above the laws seem to be the most powerful rich people and actors and actess which is not right.Everyone no matter what they are should be punished.

No way, if they do something purposely illegal then of course they should get the same treatment and punishment as everyone else.

The problem is they can afford an array of top lawyers, if I did something I couldn´t afford 1 drunked usesless lawyer.

They can also pay people off, ie the ones accusing them of something.As an example, I´m not saying he is guilty but look at how Michael Jackson payed the family in the child abuse case off.( If my child was abused I woulnd´t have accepted it mind).

Yes. 😛

Well nobody *should* be, but people who are famous, good looking, rich, and female, get away with breaking the law all of the time. It's how it is.

In the MJ case, that kid came forward and said the dad wanted money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
China: kill in numbers that make Hitler look like a bleeding heart, have apologists in the US say "no no, they're all reformed now" for the sake of good trade relations.

Yeah, but they're mostly killing other Chinese, so it's ok.

No to the TC's question, but their access to resources that allow them to "bend" the rules more than the common man(and definitely more than the poor) is the real issue.

...IMO.

.....

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Some of you may have read this story from last year http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20101108/NEWS/101109802/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Basically Martin Joel Erzinger, a wealthy financial manager hit a bicyclist with his car, permanently crippling him, then left him for dead. The Judge dropped all felony charges because he's a financial manager and a felony may jeopardize his job and the money of his clients.

Now here's more of the same. http://www.dailycamera.com/broomfield-news/ci_18335019

Curtis Hilty, a rich Realtor drugged and raped his 20 year old babysitter resulting in two felony charges and a potential life sentence. The judge and his family felt that the sentencing laws were too vague for somebody that had made a "mistake", dropped the felony charges, and sentenced him to 30 days in the city jail and 20 years of probation.

This all reminds me of Clarence Burns, a rich wife beater who was sentenced to two years of evenings and weekends in jail for pumping six bullets into his wife's head.

So here's my question. In this age when the most retarded, laughable concepts such as nullification, social Darwinism, Segregation, Racism, McCarthyism etc. are being given new consideration, should wealthy people be given a pass for committing felonies since i could cause financial harm to a community?

It's not just wealthy people. One of my old lecturers was the scene of crime officer in a double murder where a royal marine shot and killed his wife and baby daughter with a shotgun to the head.

He was found guilty but admonished on the basis that he'd "suffered enough".

Idiotic sentencing can be applied to anyone.

The Wealthy are not above the law, Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith, were both charged with rape at the same time. The Millionaire Black Champion was found guilty. The wealthy white American royal was not. Who knows if either actually committed the act...

I definitely can see the logic in letting the rich investment dude off...HOWEVER...what they SHOULD have done was sent him to prison, anyway, and allowed him to conduct business completely from jail and all the money he made for himself would go to the state or some sort of emergency room/hospital.

I know that sounds crazy but if he really had tons of people's retirements tied into his business and it would have been detrimental for all of those people and their investments...I definitely would not want all of those people punished for one man's actions. In this day in age...it's a complete cop-out to use the excuse that he could not conduct business from prison. They could easily monitor all of his actions and only allow business related communications for his manslaughter sentence (which would last up to 8 years.) In fact, he may be more productful in prison.

I hold similar beliefs for really good doctors/EMS/nurses that save lives pretty much on a daily basis: they do far more good outside than behind bars. Maybe make them work for free and pay all of their wages to the victims' family?

I actually do not know what the best solution is but I can see how destroying the life of 2 people can actually destroy the lives of far more than those two people. "Punished" is not the way the system should work, anyway, Darth Jello, so I think you're off in your line of thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I definitely can see the logic in letting the rich investment dude off...HOWEVER...what they SHOULD have done was sent him to prison, anyway, and allowed him to conduct business completely from jail and all the money he made for himself would go to the state or some sort of emergency room/hospital.

I know that sounds crazy but if he really had tons of people's retirements tied into his business and it would have been detrimental for all of those people and their investments...I definitely would not want all of those people punished for one man's actions. In this day in age...it's a complete cop-out to use the excuse that he could not conduct business from prison. They could easily monitor all of his actions and only allow business related communications for his manslaughter sentence (which would last up to 8 years.) In fact, he may be more productful in prison.

I hold similar beliefs for really good doctors/EMS/nurses that save lives pretty much on a daily basis: they do far more good outside than behind bars. Maybe make them work for free and pay all of their wages to the victims' family?

I actually do not know what the best solution is but I can see how destroying the life of 2 people can actually destroy the lives of far more than those two people. "Punished" is not the way the system should work, anyway, Darth Jello, so I think you're off in your line of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Someone else could take over those financial accounts. To expect the same job performance from a man sent to prison is insane. The same would apply to a doctor forced to work "for free".

Same should apply to jury duty. Business owners are let off all the time because being on a jury could be detritmental to their business. I say tough shit. If I have to do it, they should too.

The same rules should apply to everyone on both sides of the legal system. Sadly I know it isn't that way and never will be.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Someone else could take over those financial accounts.

And do just as well with out skipping any beats? Highly unlikely especially if he was heavily involved with directly managing them.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
To expect the same job performance from a man sent to prison is insane. The same would apply to a doctor forced to work "for free".

Wrong - he'd be even more proficient at managing the accounts he had. Sure, maybe he couldn't take on any new clients, but he'd have far more time to invest in managing the accounts. What's insane is nothing being discussed.

And, there are literally thousands of doctors that work for free.

😐

Just google search "volunteer doctor".

😐

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Same should apply to jury duty. Business owners are let off all the time because being on a jury could be detritmental to their business. I say tough shit. If I have to do it, they should too.

This is a different topic, entirely.

I say that if you cannot take off of work for Jury Duty, there's much easier ways to go about avoiding Jury Duty...like pretending to be a racist. 😉

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The same rules should apply to everyone on both sides of the legal system. Sadly I know it isn't that way and never will be.

The premise of the thread assumes criminals should be punished, not reformed. The system should be setup to REFORM people, not punish them. This is where you and Darth Jello are approaching the topic completely wrong.

People should be equally "treated" and "reformed".