2007-08-12 08:55:46 · 9 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That is a great question, and something I would dearly like to know myself - even though just lately it seems things might have taken a turn towards change. Those Enron pieces of garbage got some prison time, but if it was left up to me, I'd strip them of every last dime they had.
Mind you, I'm not in favor of going too easy on "petty crime". If the law clamped down on it, with a good first time "jolt" of punishment, I'm convinced it would deter that person a lot more effectively from further offences, than when all they got was little more than a slap on the wrist. Most of the time, we know very well, that it is rarely the first offence anyway, and just the first time they got caught. But those "big fish" in charge of big companies, who methodically, and with determination and cunning, syphon off millions of dollars, leading often to total collapse of that enterprise, and the loss of precious savings to thousands of individual investors, is something that just galls me beyond words. If I believed in Hell, I would want there to be a special place reserved there just for them.
2007-08-12 09:14:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Few enforcement agencies are equipped to investigate, much less prosecute, these well financed white collar criminals. Corporate fraud is well concealed under bank privacy laws, behind closed doors, and with few witnesses who can come forward. Whistleblowers who DO come forward are seen as vindictive and get little respect from the law for their efforts.
And, most white collar crime starts at the top with the CEO as ring leader. With money and power like that, it's pretty hard to uncover a paper trail to their dirty money.
But a petty thief doesn't have layers of concealment to hide his crimes. They get caught 'cause they steal in public so they are MUCH easier to go after. Similar to traffic offenses- cops will enforce the laws easiest to convict. If it's too much work...I think they just let it go.
2007-08-12 11:59:27 · answer #2 · answered by upside down 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd be relatively happy if that was the case around here.
Where I am, they tend to go out of their way to punish 'victimless crimes' and are lenient on, or pretty much ignore, things like petty theft, vandalism, B&E, etc. Even violent crimes and things such as racketeering / running a chop shop are usually plea bargained to not much more than a slap on the wrist.
2007-08-12 13:55:59 · answer #3 · answered by tj 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you are correct. If you look at white collar criminals, they usually have better defensive attorneys and media coverage. Petty theft offenders usually plea with the DA.
2007-08-12 11:22:04 · answer #4 · answered by justanotherone 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a conceptual split between the relative harms.
Someone who is violent is considered more dangerous than someone who merely embezzled money via paperwork.
I don't think that's the proper way to look at it -- but it's a perspective that many people have.
2007-08-12 09:02:35 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, when he spent 20 years in a work prison, for stealing a loaf of bread! *sm*
2007-08-12 09:17:03 · answer #6 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hence - over crowding in the jail systems - no overcrowind in the Federal Systems..hummm
2007-08-12 09:04:34 · answer #7 · answered by muffin 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
because petty criminals can't afford fancy lawyers.
2007-08-12 09:01:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because they have money and this country protects them.
Rich people can afford it and that is why lawyers are expensive.
2007-08-12 09:03:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋