Execute Ken Lay? (Enron)

[Rambuchan]

Betazed: What you are suggesting sounds a lot like how justice works in places like Africa and India. If you've got the cash, just commit the crime and pay (bribe) your way out of it. Then you're free to carry on as you like. You may have some logic working with unfeasibly large figures of money (how are they actually supposed to pay it?) but in principle, it's a recipe for corruption. And citing the fact they have a de facto immunity owing to them affording better lawyers doesn't stand up all over the world. Moreover, even in highly litiginous (is it a word?) countries, we've seen nobodys trounce large multinationals a few times.

Fraud vs Murder: I get the feeling you guys are trying to compare apples and oranges. Motivations for murder and fraud are often miles apart. Ditto the effects on the victims. The people who commit these crimes are typically well distanced on the social spectrum too. I simply pointed out a parallel because of the scale of the Enron crime and the fact that the death penalty was brought up. A typical-fraud to typical-murder comparison is going to be hard, because they are such hugely different crimes.

 

[betazed]

Betazed: What you are suggesting sounds a lot like how justice works in places like Africa and India. If you've got the cash, just commit the crime and pay (bribe) your way out of it.

Ram, I have to say that you are being naive if you say that this kind of thing does not happen in the first world. If you have got the cash you can pretty much commit any crime. The beauty is that you do not even have to commit it yourself, you could just pay someone else to commit it for you.

Then you're free to carry on as you like. You may have some logic working with unfeasibly large figures of money (how are they actually supposed to pay it?) but in principle, it's a recipe for corruption.

The corruption is already there. All I am doing is acknowledging it and making the best of it.

And citing the fact they have a de facto immunity owing to them affording better lawyers doesn't stand up all over the world.

Why not?

Moreover, even in highly litiginous (is it a word?) countries, we've seen nobodys trounce large multinationals a few times.

Sure you have. And in all those cases, all those corporations have done is pay some money, right? Well, that's what I am proposing anyway.

 

[betazed]

Paying to get rid of murder just isn't right.

Why? Just because we are programmed to feel that way?

I have yet to see a good argument why what you say is right.

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't think that basing your whole legal system on one's ability to pay your way out of it is a very sensible idea at all. Sure we may have it to an extent now all over the world. I don't see how your'e making the best of it if you're proposing amounts of money that can't be paid by the way. They get away scot free and society gets squat.

I'd much rather not take away the mechanisms and principles which guide us away from what is plainly a cut thoat atmosphere such as you are putting forward. Imagine what Lay would do then.

 

[Stile]

The corruption is already there. All I am doing is acknowledging it and making the best of it.

The corruption is already there. All you are doing is joining in. If it's money you're after, why not require the money and the perpetrator's life/freedom?

 

[warpus]

Apart from the fact that there is no one rich enough, it can be argued that the rich person breaking the law is definitely paying his dues to the society (after all he is paying $100 billion). So he isn't going scott free? So how is it any worse from a poor man breaking the law and paying his dues by spending more of society's money in jail?

The problem is that somebody rich enough ends up having more than 1 option after breaking the law - go to jail or pay up.

Everybody should be treated equally under the law - no exceptions. If you break the law you shouldn't have more than 1 option simply because you're well off.

 

[betazed]

Imagine what Lay would do then.

Can you tell me how Lay would behave differently?

 

[betazed]

Everybody should be treated equally under the law - no exceptions.

Err... apart from being a nice slogan line is there any point to that statement. We are not discussing how things should be. We are discussing how things are.

If you break the law you shouldn't have more than 1 option simply because you're well off.

But you do! You can hire kick-ass lawyers if you have money who will make sure you stay out of jail and no one can stop you from doing that.

If it's money you're after, why not require the money and the perpetrator's life/freedom?

Then you are punishing the rich more than the poor just because they are rich! Can you give me any reason why you want to do that?

 

[Rambuchan]

Can you tell me how Lay would behave differently?

What a ridiculous question.

You've got a guy with millions upon millions in the bank, having just defrauded huge amounts of his fellow citizens. You're suggesting a system which allows one to pay their way out of justice and walk back to freedom. HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK HE WOULD REACT!!!?

I'm finding it a bit offensive that you're suggesting all of this. Are you forgetting all the people whose lives have been gutted by this man's actions?

 

[betazed]

What a ridiculous question.

You've got a guy with millions upon millions in the bank, having just defrauded huge amounts of his fellow citizens. You're suggesting a system which allows one to pay their way out of justice and walk back to freedom. HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK HE WOULD REACT!!!?

I'm finding it a bit offensive that you're suggesting all of this. Are you forgetting all the people whose lives have been gutted by this man's actions?

Dude. First you need to calm down. Whenever, you are faced with a difficult question that does not jive with your understanding you become emo. {This ain't the first time this is happenning either }

Now check that emotion at the door and walk in here and let me explain to you a few things.

Right now he has millions and he is spening the millions on lawyers to stay out of jail. In my scheme he will still spend millions to stay out of jail. The only difference being that those millions instead of going into the lawyers pockets would go to pay down the national debt (say).

So how is it not better?

 

[blackheart]

Right now he has millions and he is spening the millions on lawyers to stay out of jail. In my scheme he will still spend millions to stay out of jail. The only difference being that those millions instead of going into the lawyers pockets would go to pay down the national debt (say).

So how is it not better?

Because you're basically saying instead of using his money, which he earned, to fight in the legal system that everyone abides by, he can just use his money to buy his way out of jail. You don't see a problem with this?

 

[Rambuchan]

Dude. First you need to calm down. Whenever, you are faced with a difficult question that does not jive with your understanding you become emo. {This ain't the first time this is happenning either }

Now check that emotion at the door and walk in here and let me explain to you a few things.

Right now he has millions and he is spening the millions on lawyers to stay out of jail. In my scheme he will still spend millions to stay out of jail. The only difference being that those millions instead of going into the lawyers pockets would go to pay down the national debt (say).

So how is it not better?

Ahem, yeah sorry about that. But listen up, this is not the first time you've suggested ridiculousness, highly offensive nonsense either. I remember the time you suggested we just kill all the Muslims in the world to solve that particular problem. It's absurd, offensive and you need to apologise for those kind of comments as well really. Whereas you think it's a really smart idea, I actually like to think our discussions have some bearing on what's going on in people's lives.

Now the difference is that in your plan Lay walks away and carries on doing it all again. What's so sensible about that?

 

[Stile]

Then you are punishing the rich more than the poor just because they are rich! Can you give me any reason why you want to do that?

Not more. The same. Require their freedom/life and a percentage of their networth. Jesus already set precedent with the idea that the value of money is relative to whoever gives it, and the judicial system has followed suit with differing amounts of bail depending on ability to pay.

 

[El_Machinae]

You've got a guy with millions upon millions in the bank

However, he certainly does not have enough to compensate the victims of his crime - so he will not be able to buy his way out of justice. In this specific case, he's hasn't profited from his crime as much as the victims have suffered.

Drug abusers KNOW that their habit is feeding one of the most vicious industries on the planet, and causing pain and death in many different countries in an astronomic scale.

QFT.

 

[.Shane.]

I'm reversing your paragraphs, since I'm replying in that order.

Now I actually believe one has the right to defend his property with deadly force. A car that someone spent a year of his life working to purchase has that value. And a thief who tries to steal it is attempting to take a year of that man's life away. Defend your life! But if the thief makes away with the car and then wrecks the car, there is no point in killing him, because there is nothing left to defend. It then falls to the judicial system where the loss was merely monetary. That is about as much as I care to blend the value of life and money.

So, I can kill you if I catch you trying to steal my car which, if I'm following the law of most states, is insured anyway? And, then you suggest that the loss is = to a year of your life lost?

And, then you say the following about my point: "Your links to decreased lifespan is tenuous at best." I just have to ROFL at that.

As to what Lay et al., did, they did fix energy prices through illegal manipulation, its pretty well established. Probably not hard to verify w/ a little googling.

But, I'll help you out:

For example, Enron fixes rates in California. Here's a nice quote from Lay: ""In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money."

Pension fund losses and employee retirements destroyed.

There's volumes more out there.

The business was poorly run which would have cost the employees their jobs regardless. Running a business poorly isn't a crime, so loss of health insurance isn't an issue, and in America it would only result in degraded health care anyway not an utter lack of it. Atleast the examples I gave someone actually died.

This is not a matter of a business being "poorly run". I was laid off in 2001 by a company that was "poorly run". However, they were not criminal, just stupid and I have no beef with them in that sense at all.

Enron is a masterful criminal endeavor, perhaps unprecedented. Its is not just the exception, but a grand one, to the rule. What Lay, Skilling, etc... did was malicious, it was with criminal intent, they were aware that they were causing great harm, etc....

So, yes, given all the harm caused to 1000s upon 1000s of people, I think the death penalty is warranted, given the low bar its set at. Given that various states in the US have executed the ********, children (committed their crime under the age of 18), I think that given Lay's education, vast life experience, etc... he certainly is as heinous as a ******** 20 year old and poses much more of a threat to society.

Seriously, do any of you think that 1 solitary murder in a population of 250 million people is a worse crime than the ruination of 1000s lives and the harming of the additional 10s of 1000s (to a much lesser degree), no doubt some of whom suffered greatly, physically and mentally, probably leading to premature death?

AND given that that solitary murderer may have been too young and/or mentally impaired to fully understand what he did, while the corporate exec has the benefit of full legal counsel, advanced education, and almost every privilege that life can afford, that those white collar criminals should have a lesser punishment just because of our fixation or inability to extrapolate beyond what's immediately in front of us?

I don't think so.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

 

[betazed]

Because you're basically saying instead of using his money, which he earned, to fight in the legal system that everyone abides by, he can just use his money to buy his way out of jail. You don't see a problem with this?

Forget whether I have a problem with it or not. You tell me how my scheme is any different in practice than what we are already practicing.

 

[Stile]

Right now he has millions and he is spening the millions on lawyers to stay out of jail. In my scheme he will still spend millions to stay out of jail. The only difference being that those millions instead of going into the lawyers pockets would go to pay down the national debt (say).

So would there even be a trial in your system. Can you pre-pay? Can someone else pay on your behalf?

 

[blackheart]

Forget whether I have a problem with it or not. You tell me how my scheme is any different in practice than what we are already practicing.

Because in the current system, with or without corruption, is a trial by jury and he CAN be (in this case, already IS) found guilty. In your system, there is nothing but paying upfront. Where is the justice in that?

 

[betazed]

Ahem, yeah sorry about that. But listen up, this is not the first time you've suggested ridiculousness, highly offensive nonsense either. I remember the time you suggested we just kill all the Muslims in the world to solve that particular problem. It's absurd, offensive and you need to apologise for those kind of comments as well really.

Ah, I see you are easily offended. Oh Well! All I am doing is asking questions!

Whereas you think it's a really smart idea, I actually like to think our discussions have some bearing on what's going on in people's lives.

You see I am under no such illusion! Irrespective of what you and I say in CFC OT it will have not one wit of bearing on real people's lives.

Now the difference is that in your plan Lay walks away and carries on doing it all again. What's so sensible about that?

But he will be much poorer in my scheme. So if he does it again and can't pay the fine put him in jail! Hey, execute him for all I care. In the current scheme he still walks away at the end of it, he is much poorer and if he commits the crime again he can't hire the lawyers and he goes to jail. So what's the big difference?

 

[Rambuchan]

Betazed: Well in your grand plan there wouldn't even be a trial because there are no judges and lawyers. So I'm failing to see how you'd find out whether someone has to pay or not in the first place. Care to explain that much?