40 years seems a bit extreme

[laterbloomer]

So apparently the parents in the USC school fraud case could face up to 20 years for each charge, 2 charges means 40 years. I don't think I have read a minimum sentence if they are found guilty. Doesn't 40 years seem a bit extreme for cheating to get into school. People that commit manslaughter get less time. Rapists get less time. Pedophiles get less time. How does this rate for 40 years?

[Deleted]

Minimum is 4 months, serve 85%, and some can be in a halfway house.  It's what I've been hearing Felicity Huffman is expected to be facing.  It's the ones pleading not guilty that are risking a lot.   Lori Loughlin could be digging a big hole.  They immediately tacked on more charges when she plead not guilty. 

[Tennesseer]

Forty years is extreme.  All should probably get much less.  Felicity Huffman maybe a few months and then probation.

[laterbloomer]

The ones that plead guilty to the first charge are still going to jail. That blows my mind quite honestly. I was expecting a fine or something. Anyway, the ones that didn't take a deal pissed them off so they are going for larger sentences. Or do you think their bluffing and they don't really have iron clad cases?

[Tennesseer]

Apr 15, 2019 21:16:09 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The ones that plead guilty to the first charge are still going to jail. That blows my mind quite honestly. I was expecting a fine or something. Anyway, the ones that didn't take a deal pissed them off so they are going for larger sentences. Or do you think their bluffing and they don't really have iron clad cases?

An agreement to plead guilty often results in some of the charges being dropped because of their cooperation in not requiring a court trial and all that goes into them.

[weltschmerz]

Apr 15, 2019 20:18:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

So apparently the parents in the USC school fraud case could face up to 20 years for each charge, 2 charges means 40 years. I don't think I have read a minimum sentence if they are found guilty. Doesn't 40 years seem a bit extreme for cheating to get into school. People that commit manslaughter get less time. Rapists get less time. Pedophiles get less time. How does this rate for 40 years?

The two sentences of 20 years will probably be served concurrently, so still 20 years.

[hoops902]

So while the max sentence might be 20 years...it seems like it's because these are the kinds of charges that while I really dislike them, I understand the reason and that they've probably been used to help society at some point (specifically, their existence is built around prosecuting organized crime).  Since proving things like murder is hard, you just jack up the punishment for another, more easily provable crime, and then use that as a stand-in for all the crimes you'd LIKE to charge someone with.  The problem (potential problem) occurs when you find someone who is actually guilty of the more easily provable crime who wasn't really the consideration when creating sentencing standards (like non organized crime folks) and all of a sudden they are facing a potentially exorbitant punishment (it looks like nobody is going to face that kind of stiff punishment here).  

I don't think this rates for 40 years, it doesn't sound like any parent is going to serve anything close to 40 years, or 20 years, or 10 years.  Honestly, this is the kind of thing that "for me" doesn't even rate as jail time.  This is a great news story, and it's a great example for discussion about money/power in America, but it's pretty close to a victimless crime (still a crime, but "reputation" seems to be the biggest downside as opposed to a specific named victim).  That said, there are a lot of things people are doing jail time for that I think is ridiculous, so I also understand lots of folks will want some jail time for this given all the other things people go to jail for (I just happen to think most of those other things shouldn't result in jail time either).

[Deleted]

They should have to pay for college for the kids who lost their spot due to their CHEATING. Imagine being the kid who has been involved in sports forever, has the potential to get to do it at an Ivy or other named school, and got screwed by some actor or another rich person's money. It's disgusting.

[justme]

I don't think the kids knocked any student athlete out. They merely said they were looking at them to recruite, they didn't give them a spot and they definitely weren't offered a scholarship. Either would have had the NCAA catching on to this way sooner.

[Deleted]

40 years is way too extreme but there does need to be some jail time for this so it discourages others. If all they give them is a fine you are basically telling everyone it’s ok to do this because if you get caught you just have to pay some more.

I believe Huffman should and will get 2 months since she admitted guilt right away with a contrite apology, and she only paid 15k.

I believe Loughlin probably should get 8-10 months since it was 500k but may get a year now that she’s dragging it out.

I understand the Feds have a very high conviction rate because they usually don’t go after anything without evidence for conviction and they have the war chest of the US gov behind them. I believe that’s why Macy wasn’t charged, they don’t have a slam dunk with him.

[movingforward]

40 years is way too extreme but there does need to be some jail time for this so it discourages others. If all they give them is a fine you are basically telling everyone it’s ok to do this because if you get caught you just have to pay some more.

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Apr 16, 2019 12:16:01 GMT -5 movingforward said:

40 years is way too extreme but there does need to be some jail time for this so it discourages others. If all they give them is a fine you are basically telling everyone it’s ok to do this because if you get caught you just have to pay some more.

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

Really....how much of a fine do you suppose is going to deter someone from doing this?  If you have a bottomless bucket of money, it might sting some but it isn’t going to deter someone else.  What DOES deter them is loss of independence.  It evens the playing field.  

Lori Loughlin and her husband have a net worth of $80 million, and their money will continue to roll in, even if you take all of it.   

[NastyWoman]

Apr 16, 2019 12:16:01 GMT -5 movingforward said:

40 years is way too extreme but there does need to be some jail time for this so it discourages others. If all they give them is a fine you are basically telling everyone it’s ok to do this because if you get caught you just have to pay some more.

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

But why ARE we getting so upset over this specific tiny group of people, especially if we take into account that legacy students take up such a large percentage of students admitted?

www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html

If we really want to restore, or more precisely require they start, acceptance on merit only this would seem a much more logical place to start - and that is not even getting into why this whole legacy thing came into being in the first place. And what about the students admitted because their great/grand/parents are considerable benefactors of the school?

Do we really believe that all those legacy/benefactor offspring are better or more deserving than other kids applying?

Like others I do not like what happened here but, unless we change the entire system to be fair(er), I also see nothing but a desire for revenge and envy in the way we have reacted to this.

[movingforward]

Apr 16, 2019 12:44:55 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:16:01 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

But why ARE we getting so upset over this specific tiny group of people, especially if we take into account that legacy students take up such a large percentage of students admitted?

www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html

If we really want to restore, or more precisely require they start, acceptance on merit only this would seem a much more logical place to start - and that is not even getting into why this whole legacy thing came into being in the first place. And what about the students admitted because their great/grand/parents are considerable benefactors of the school?

Do we really believe that all those legacy/benefactor offspring are better or more deserving than other kids applying?

Like others I do not like what happened here but, unless we change the entire system to be fair(er), I also see nothing but a desire for revenge and envy in the way we have reacted to this.

No, this needs to stop too...

[gs11rmb]

Apr 16, 2019 12:52:10 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:44:55 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

But why ARE we getting so upset over this specific tiny group of people, especially if we take into account that legacy students take up such a large percentage of students admitted?

www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html

If we really want to restore, or more precisely require they start, acceptance on merit only this would seem a much more logical place to start - and that is not even getting into why this whole legacy thing came into being in the first place. And what about the students admitted because their great/grand/parents are considerable benefactors of the school?

Do we really believe that all those legacy/benefactor offspring are better or more deserving than other kids applying?

Like others I do not like what happened here but, unless we change the entire system to be fair(er), I also see nothing but a desire for revenge and envy in the way we have reacted to this.

No, this needs to stop too...

Why?  I didn't go to a fancy school and I doubt my children will but I can't get myself upset about legacy admissions.  

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2019 12:44:55 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:16:01 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

But why ARE we getting so upset over this specific tiny group of people, especially if we take into account that legacy students take up such a large percentage of students admitted?

www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html

If we really want to restore, or more precisely require they start, acceptance on merit only this would seem a much more logical place to start - and that is not even getting into why this whole legacy thing came into being in the first place. And what about the students admitted because their great/grand/parents are considerable benefactors of the school?

Do we really believe that all those legacy/benefactor offspring are better or more deserving than other kids applying?

Like others I do not like what happened here but, unless we change the entire system to be fair(er), I also see nothing but a desire for revenge and envy in the way we have reacted to this.

Before getting too bent out of shape on the legacy admissions, I'd like to see the merit of the ones who get in.  You have some 35K kids a year applying to Harvard and a lot (if not most) of them are sitting with a 4.0+ GPA and 1400+ SAT scores.  If I'm in admissions, I'd be looking for something that made some of them stand out...and honestly the rich, white kids normally also have all the stand out credentials too.  They've been on mission trips, studied abroad, classically trained musician since 3,...oh, and Great grandpa's name is on the library and your grandpa and father also attended this school.   I mean, unless you want to go to a straight lottery system for those that meet the requirements, it's going to lean towards the wealthy legacy kids.

Also, at least if a family is buying a science building or something, the entire school and all the other students are benefiting. 

[NastyWoman]

Apr 16, 2019 12:58:35 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:52:10 GMT -5 movingforward said:

No, this needs to stop too...

Why?  I didn't go to a fancy school and I doubt my children will but I can't get myself upset about legacy admissions.  

 Well we do differ in that respect. Maybe it is just the roots of this whole legacy thing that turns me off, but still.

I did not even go to college in the US for my first degree and where I come from your academic performance is (was?) all that counts. Neither one of my sons applied to an Ivy League school and when they were of college age compition was definitely less fierce that it is now, so who knows whether they would have gotten in or not. Both have done very well without that anyway

But here is part of why I dislike this whole legacy thing (it was born out of the desire to keep certain groups of less desirable students out):

"While the sons of wealthy Americans had received priority in college admissions throughout the nineteenth century, in the early twentieth century, frustrated by the poor academic performances of their students, elite colleges raised their admission standards. Immigrants—especially the children of Jewish immigrant families—and Catholics and people from modest socioeconomic backgrounds frequently performed well on the new admissions tests and started to garner large numbers of undergraduate seats at top universities, while the number of admissions for wealthy white Anglo-American stock dropped significantly. In response, several Ivy League institutions began an official practice of legacy admissions, designed to reserve large numbers of seats at the top schools for the sons of wealthy Protestant American stock. These legacy admissions included decreasing the importance of entrance exams and adding such elements as assessing the "personal characteristics" of the young men seeking admittance, considering their "home influence," interviewing some of the applicants, and asking for letters of recommendation attesting to their character. Such elements in the application process curtailed the admittance of immigrants, Jews, Catholics, and working-class men and restored the overwhelming presence of the white, wealthy Anglo-Protestant men."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

[Bonny]

Apr 16, 2019 13:17:48 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:58:35 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Why?  I didn't go to a fancy school and I doubt my children will but I can't get myself upset about legacy admissions.  

 Well we do differ in that respect. Maybe it is just the roots of this whole legacy thing that turns me off, but still.

I did not even go to college in the US for my first degree and where I come from your academic performance is (was?) all that counts. Neither one of my sons applied to an Ivy League school and when they were of college age compition was definitely less fierce that it is now, so who knows whether they would have gotten in or not. Both have done very well without that anyway

But here is part of why I dislike this whole legacy thing (it was born out of the desire to keep certain groups of less desirable students out):

"While the sons of wealthy Americans had received priority in college admissions throughout the nineteenth century, in the early twentieth century, frustrated by the poor academic performances of their students, elite colleges raised their admission standards. Immigrants—especially the children of Jewish immigrant families—and Catholics and people from modest socioeconomic backgrounds frequently performed well on the new admissions tests and started to garner large numbers of undergraduate seats at top universities, while the number of admissions for wealthy white Anglo-American stock dropped significantly. In response, several Ivy League institutions began an official practice of legacy admissions, designed to reserve large numbers of seats at the top schools for the sons of wealthy Protestant American stock. These legacy admissions included decreasing the importance of entrance exams and adding such elements as assessing the "personal characteristics" of the young men seeking admittance, considering their "home influence," interviewing some of the applicants, and asking for letters of recommendation attesting to their character. Such elements in the application process curtailed the admittance of immigrants, Jews, Catholics, and working-class men and restored the overwhelming presence of the white, wealthy Anglo-Protestant men."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

I see your point about the roots of legacy admissions but I think in today's practical world that it's more about money to operate and grow the school.

That's an interesting wiki article which mainly quotes from four authors who appeared to work on each other's papers/books.

[Bonny]

Apr 16, 2019 12:24:14 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:16:01 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Telling rich people all they have to do is pay more money isn't going to discourage this from happening again. I believe a small amount of jail time is warranted. Lori Loughlin has just become extremely annoying in my opinion.

Really....how much of a fine do you suppose is going to deter someone from doing this?  If you have a bottomless bucket of money, it might sting some but it isn’t going to deter someone else.  What DOES deter them is loss of independence.  It evens the playing field.  

Lori Loughlin and her husband have a net worth of $80 million, and their money will continue to roll in, even if you take all of it.   

Her career is likely over though due to the scandal. His will be hurt too. I haven't heard yet if Target is planning on dropping him as a vendor.

The thing that struck me was with all of that privilege, money and connections that they still had to cheat.

[movingforward]

Apr 16, 2019 12:58:35 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:52:10 GMT -5 movingforward said:

No, this needs to stop too...

Why?  I didn't go to a fancy school and I doubt my children will but I can't get myself upset about legacy admissions.  

Eh, it's not something I get all bend out of shape over but I don't believe that a legacy makes anyone more deserving than anyone else...just because someone has money/legacy doesn't mean they have "earned" a place at the table anymore than the kid without a legacy.

[Deleted]

Shouldn’t a private college be able to set whatever they want as entrance criteria as long as it isn’t a civil rights violation? Anecdotal I know but in my personal work experience the graveyard of Ivy League\private school grads that are mediocre in real world jobs is vast.

I think it’s a different discussion from what these parents did however, what they did was flat out fraud.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Apr 16, 2019 13:40:36 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:24:14 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Really....how much of a fine do you suppose is going to deter someone from doing this?  If you have a bottomless bucket of money, it might sting some but it isn’t going to deter someone else.  What DOES deter them is loss of independence.  It evens the playing field.  

Lori Loughlin and her husband have a net worth of $80 million, and their money will continue to roll in, even if you take all of it.   

Her career is likely over though due to the scandal. His will be hurt too. I haven't heard yet if Target is planning on dropping him as a vendor.

The thing that struck me was with all of that privilege, money and connections that they still had to cheat.

Her career will be over, but she will still likely get residuals from the TV shows she has done.  I think he will probably come out of it better though.  

I don't understand why she was so hell bent on getting her kids in USC.  I know the youngest has absolutely no interest, other than how much she can party.  You don't need to be in college for that.  The older one seems to be flying under radar though.

[hoops902]

Apr 16, 2019 13:43:49 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Apr 16, 2019 12:58:35 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Why?  I didn't go to a fancy school and I doubt my children will but I can't get myself upset about legacy admissions.  

Eh, it's not something I get all bend out of shape over but I don't believe that a legacy makes anyone more deserving than anyone else...just because someone has money/legacy doesn't mean they have "earned" a place at the table anymore than the kid without a legacy.

Ok, so let's say all that is true.  How is getting into a college because you have money or a legacy any different than getting into political office, a job, a house in a nice neighborhood, etc?  Why does someone who inherited a bunch of money, or who has a trust fund, have a right to live in a nicer place than someone who worked hard but didn't have those things?  

If we back out of the bribery thing, because that's really just taking money and putting it into an individual's pocket...is there anything inherently wrong with a school saying "your kid wouldn't get in on merit, but if you pay us $500k, we'll let them in"?  Just like with legacies and big donors, that $500k is going to improve the education of the students who are there...isn't that much more fair than all the other things those born into advantage get?   The larger population isn't necessarily seeing any advantage when someone rich gets into political office, or buys a mansion, etc.  And we people really think "oh, this person got in so someone else didn't"...that's simply not how it works.  If the school knows, they could easily add another few hundred students to a big campus like USC who bought their way in.  Is it different if they charge the parent $500k and use that money to fund several need students' tuition needs?

[obelisk]

Apr 15, 2019 20:18:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

So apparently the parents in the USC school fraud case could face up to 20 years for each charge, 2 charges means 40 years. I don't think I have read a minimum sentence if they are found guilty. Doesn't 40 years seem a bit extreme for cheating to get into school. People that commit manslaughter get less time. Rapists get less time. Pedophiles get less time. How does this rate for 40 years?

Not just bribing but also tax evasion. Some of the parents deducted the "bribe" as a charitable contribution on their taxes.  That is what is going to get them the most jail time.

All I got to say is IDIOTS.

[haapai]

Apr 16, 2019 14:01:58 GMT -5 obelisk said:

Apr 15, 2019 20:18:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

So apparently the parents in the USC school fraud case could face up to 20 years for each charge, 2 charges means 40 years. I don't think I have read a minimum sentence if they are found guilty. Doesn't 40 years seem a bit extreme for cheating to get into school. People that commit manslaughter get less time. Rapists get less time. Pedophiles get less time. How does this rate for 40 years?

Not just bribing but also tax evasion. Some of the parents deducted the "bribe" as a charitable contribution on their taxes.  That is what is going to get them the most jail time.

All I got to say is IDIOTS.

It's also possible that the folks that entered not guilty pleas are the ones that had the sense to record their conversations with Singer and show them to attorneys.  If they know with absolute certainty that Singer was the one who suggested writing the checks to the sham charities instead of to his business, they might have some sort of defense. 

[obelisk]

Apr 16, 2019 14:07:55 GMT -5 haapai said:

Apr 16, 2019 14:01:58 GMT -5 obelisk said:

Not just bribing but also tax evasion. Some of the parents deducted the "bribe" as a charitable contribution on their taxes.  That is what is going to get them the most jail time.

All I got to say is IDIOTS.

It's also possible that the folks that entered not guilty pleas are the ones that had the sense to record their conversations with Singer and show them to attorneys.  If they know with absolute certainty that Singer was the one who suggested writing the checks to the sham charities instead of to his business, they might have some sort of defense. 

The same folks who photo shopped their kid in a sport they never participated in and also to have a proctor "improve" the kid's ACT test did not believe that certain individuals had to be bribed to achieve such results!!!!!!!  Somehow the sport coach and college entrance exams proctors where a charity in themselves!!!!!!!!

[haapai]

I didn't say that they were innocents, just that they might have some sort of defense, or a slightly better defense, or more need of a defense against tax and conspiracy charges than the other parents.  Knowing exactly what was said by Singer prior to discovery and exactly when the conversation took place could be quite helpful, especially if Singer was already cooperating with the Feds when the discussion of writing checks to a "charity" instead of the business came up.  

[Tiny]

I can't judge if 40 years is too extreme or not --- because I don't know what that actually means in terms of "time served".    I highly doubt any one convicted will actually serve 40 years and probably not even 20 years - I strongly suspect it will actually mean 12 months or less (due to whatever they count as "time served").   
 
The whole "prison time" thing is alot like "retail price" on something you want to buy.   The retail price might be $100 but by the time you get done with markdowns, coupons, and discounts you only pay $12 plus tax.   Which STILL gave the store selling the item a good return (because it cost them $4.00). 

I personally think that if they are convicted they should have to actually, physically, be in a prison and wearing an ugly "prison wardrobe" for 4 years.   If that means the sentence must be 100 years  (to get them to that 4 years) then so be it.  

[Deleted]

This is the actual affidavit if anyone is interested in reading it.  The Loughlin stuff starts on page 88.  Huffman on 72.

link

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2019 15:02:58 GMT -5 Tiny said:

I can't judge if 40 years is too extreme or not --- because I don't know what that actually means in terms of "time served".    I highly doubt any one convicted will actually serve 40 years and probably not even 20 years - I strongly suspect it will actually mean 12 months or less (due to whatever they count as "time served").   
 
The whole "prison time" thing is alot like "retail price" on something you want to buy.   The retail price might be $100 but by the time you get done with markdowns, coupons, and discounts you only pay $12 plus tax.   Which STILL gave the store selling the item a good return (because it cost them $4.00). 

I personally think that if they are convicted they should have to actually, physically, be in a prison and wearing an ugly "prison wardrobe" for 4 years.   If that means the sentence must be 100 years  (to get them to that 4 years) then so be it.  

It's federal charges though, so you have to serve 85% of the time you are given.  I don't think anyone will get anywhere near 40 years though.