Torching cars is worse than millions in fraud?
Jeff Luers wrongly destroyed 3 trucks at dealership in a crime that was described as "eco-terrorism." For this, he now serves 22+ years in jail. No one was hurt in the arson.
More info.
Compare this to Andrew Fastow, who wrongly committed fraud of millions of dollars in the Enron scandal. He had to pay back some of the cash he made in the deal and serves a ten year sentence.
More info.
What gives?
Labels: environment
posted by Michael @ 7/05/2006 12:03:00 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
What gives: 1) the arson is a crime of violence, at least potentially, and 2) the arsonist didn't plead guilty, while Fastow cooperated with the government and made possible the cases against Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. No doubt he got a huge break in his sentence for his cooperation.
Eric,
Didn't know anyone was actually reading this blog. Glad you came by to read my every-so-often rants (what else are blogs for?). Probably via Chris' blog, I would guess (no rants there).
1) arson is a crime of violence, though Luers' actions injured no one, nor was he involved or even allegedly involved in violent acts against people. I think it's also a form of violence to corrupt a business and eventually rob people of their jobs. Far more people were hurt more badly because of Fastow (and others) than Luers (and others). I guess we'll never know what Lay's sentence would have been.
1b) it becomes a very tricky slippery slope to punish those based on the potential violence of their actions. In any case, Luers' precautions not to cause violence to anything other than property should have then mitigated his sentence, since he acted to reduce the affects of the violence.
2) There is obviously a bias against those who don't cooperate, but more especially against those who don't have something the government really wants. Maybe it is just the way it is, but is this just?
I think Luers got a huge sentence for something that was far less criminal than Fastow (though I'm no expert in either case and I still think Luers was wrong). I also think it illustrates
3) a bias against direct, visible crime (i.e. terrorism, theft, vandalism, etc.) and more toleration of less visible crime (i.e. pollution, fraud, destruction of the earth).
Reminds me of a quote:
"If people destroy something replaceable made by mankind, they are called vandals; if they destroy something irreplaceable made by God, they are called developers."
- Joseph Wood Krutch
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home