Punishment (no spamola)

[Mr Sleep]

Boris Becker, caught for tax evasion. Not the first tennis player to do so, indeed there have been a few.

Now they only sentence him to 2 years of community service, was the decision fair, I think so. The prosecution said he should be put in jail for two years, that would make very little sense really, after all that would just mean the tax payer is paying for another inmate who had basically cost the tax payer money anyway, the punishment would be more harmful than the crime.

At the same time however people in Hollywood are running rampant, the Godess of showbiz at the moment Halle Berrie was in a hit and run incident, of course nothing really came of it, I think she did a few hours community service, most of us would be thrown in jail for something like that. Is it fair, is it equal, is it right? What should have been her punishment?

When should celebrities be on our level of punishment, should they be treated better or are they the same as the rest of us just with more money? What is the appropriate punishment for their crimes, jail time doesn't quite fit the bill, there has to be something.

[HighLordDave]

Money talks. If there was one overriding lesson from the OJ trial, it was that rich people can buy "justice".

At the same time, in an instance such as you cite with Boris Becker, would a non-celebrity have received a harsher or more lenient sentence for the same crime? I think that is the litmus test. If he was a first-time offender (or at least this was his first time being caught) and the monetary amount wasn't too much, I think 2 years probation is appropriate.

While I think that many celebrities are allowed extra privileges because of their status, I also believe that prosecutors can be too zealous when someone famous is involved because they "want to make a statement" or when they want to be known as the guy/gal who took down [insert famous person here].

I'm not certain about the facts in the Halle Berry case, but was anyone hurt? If not, then community service seems appropriate for a first-time offense.

For justice to be truly served, everyone must be equal before the law, regardless of their social status, wealth or fame. The real world, of course, works differently because rich people can afford high-priced, hotshot lawyers and poor people can't. However, it is my belief that famous people should not be treated any worse or any better by the law than the rest of us.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave Money talks. If there was one overriding lesson from the OJ trial, it was that rich people can buy "justice".

Of course they did also use the "race card" as many have coined it but still it was basically an issue of using his hot shot lawyer which cost rather a lot I imagine.

Quote:

While I think that many celebrities are allowed extra privileges because of their status, I also believe that prosecutors can be too zealous when someone famous is involved because they "want to make a statement" or when they want to be known as the guy/gal who took down [insert famous person here].

That makes sense, they certainly did that in the case of Winowna Rider, there is a classic story of her left arm getting hit by a photographer and she appears the next day with a sling on her right arm The judge didn't find all the PR work very pleasing and I think it harmed her credibility greatly.

Well yes the lady who was hit was hurt, I can't recall how seriously but there was quite a lot of damage to her car. Halle Berry did a great job with her "I don't remember" speech, I mean would I get away with that kind of thing?

[HighLordDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep Of course they did also use the "race card" as many have coined it but still it was basically an issue of using his hot shot lawyer which cost rather a lot I imagine.

Johnny Cochrane did play the race card, but I think OJ's acquittal was more due to his legal "dream team" than simply because Cochrane was able to manipulate the jury with statements about race (of course, Mark Fuhrman didn't help the prosecution either). I think if you look into many celebrity trials, you'll see similar trends with the trials of rich people (that is, a high acquittal rate). While a famous person being in court brings publicity, I believe it's the lawyers that person can afford that brings an acquittal.

Quote:

Well yes the lady who was hit was hurt, I can't recall how seriously but there was quite a lot of damage to her car. Halle Berry did a great job with her "I don't remember" speech, I mean would I get away with that kind of thing?

Maybe if your boobs were as nice as Halle's, they'd let you off . . .

Do we know if Halle bought off the woman she hit? That could be another reason why charges weren't filed or pursued. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of that case to comment in detail, but there are lots of other ways for Halle Berry to avoid being charged or prosecuted other than simply because she's rich, beautiful black woman.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave While a famous person being in court brings publicity, I believe it's the lawyers that person can afford that brings an acquittal.

It is one of the many problems that beset the relationship between law and media, I can not see how it is possible for every one of those jurors to not get influenced by the sheer number of stories that are produced by the media. The publicity surely helped, I would never be convinced that every one of those jurors hadn't watched TV, read a magazine or talked to friends.

Quote:

Maybe if your boobs were as nice as Halle's, they'd let you off . . .

Are you saying my boobs aren't as nice as Ms Berry's, well I never! The youth of today!

Quote:

Do we know if Halle bought off the woman she hit? That could be another reason why charges weren't filed or pursued. As I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics of that case to comment in detail, but there are lots of other ways for Halle Berry to avoid being charged or prosecuted other than simply because she's rich, beautiful black woman.

I think the judge gave her community service. In some ways it is nice to see black people getting as fair a trail as there white counterparts in crime.

[RandomThug]

celeberties are the american royal family, above the law because they can be. I hate celeberties with a passion, over paid folks who do a good job to entertain and should leave it at that instead they take up acts and try to act as if they can be politicians, enviromentalists etc etc. In the end thier actors and its all a sham. I say lock em all up.

[Kayless]

I believe that famous people have a debt to everyone. If celebrities didn't want people pawing through their garbage and saying they're gay, they shouldn't have tried to express themselves creatively. In closing, you people must realize that the public owns you for life! And when you're dead, you'll all be in commercials, dancing with vacuum cleaners. Thank you.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomThug celeberties are the american royal family, above the law because they can be. I hate celeberties with a passion, over paid folks who do a good job to entertain and should leave it at that...

Blame the Hollywood industry, which recognizes a Good Thing, and builds a whole network of support businesses out of the offstage lives of actors. Blame the people who buy the stuff. Blame the audiences who see actors mouthing words on screen, and automatically believe that the reallife individual embodies the things that they're saying. Blame the accountants who make cash out of it. Blame the actors who believe the stuff written about themselves.

IMO, if you're making a fortune and set a bad example, whether through violent crime, tax fraud, or anything else, the penalty should be much stiffer.

[Maharlika]

...take for example, some high-profile sports-celebs like Allen Iverson of the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers.

This guy is the epitome of the immature punk who always gets away just because he has got the talent AND the money. Add Dennis Rodman too.

To see them truly face the consequences of their immature actions would be the day I'd be the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

[fable]

I'll repeat: IMO, if you're making a fortune and set a bad example, whether through violent crime, tax fraud, or anything else, the penalty should be much stiffer. Clinton deserved to be impeached, even if the Republican lawyers in Congress interrogated him on matters that were totally improper for their investigation (as they did). It was up to him to refuse to answer. By lying under oath, in office, he started himself down that road.

And frankly, Nixon deserved worse. He broke so many laws by his actions, as recorded on tape, that the man could have been brought up on charges of war crimes and manslaughter. Getting off with a pardon was not a joke; it was a travesty of justice. The kind of thing that made many Americans regard the System with no respect at all.

Nor is the US alone in this--far from it. Jacques Chirac, the French President, has only escaped punishment for bribery by benefit of his office. Silvio Berlusconi, head of the Italian government, is trying his damndest to rewrite the laws so the judiciary can't hang him out to dry for tax fraud and rigging elections. And let's not just hit on capitalists. When the old Soviet regime toppled, Brezhnev's oldest son was judged and jailed quickly for extortion and racketeering. Of course, it couldn't happen when Brezhnev was still in office. Just as Marcos' kids acted like gang bosses when he still ran the Phillipines. In fact, thanks to connections in high places, they still do, even though dad died in disgrace.

But this has always been true: the high and mighty celebrate their own accomplishments, and discreetly run roughshod over the laws they enforce on everyone else.

The higher up you on, the greater the punishment should be

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable I'll repeat: IMO, if you're making a fortune and set a bad example, whether through violent crime, tax fraud, or anything else, the penalty should be much stiffer. Clinton deserved to be impeached, even if the Republican lawyers in Congress interrogated him on matters that were totally improper for their investigation (as they did). It was up to him to refuse to answer. By lying under oath, in office, he started himself down that road.

I don't think that Clinton should have been impeached for his sexual dealings, that is private and shouldn't really have been an issue unless he assaulted her. However lying to congress was ridiculous, he should have fessed up, I think most people would have just shrugged and carried on.

A great deal of the punishment handed out should be relevant to how much of a role model or important figure the person in question is, also how bad their crime is, if it is something like Tax Evasion by a fairly well known but not household name then I don't think the crime is worth a serious punishment. Where as if it is a serious crime by a very famous person then I think the punishment should be the same as it is for anyone else. The law should be unimpeachable.

[HighLordDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable IMO, if you're making a fortune and set a bad example, whether through violent crime, tax fraud, or anything else, the penalty should be much stiffer.

I disagree. I do not believe that anyone should get special treatment because of their status or position. This means that celebrities and public officials should not get many of the perks they do receive, however, nor should they be singled out for harsher treatment because of they public eye is focused on them.

[Nippy]

It's a difficult choice, in my opinion, and the one thing that I can single out is look at the treatment games get when an incident occurs, example the sniper in Washington and the game Sniper being pulled off of shelves. What's the similarity? People consider that todays modern culture seriously affects people. So, I can see why people want to give harsher penalties to today's celebreties, hell, I hate some of today's celebreties, particuarly the British socialites in London that drink twenty-four hours a day, do no work, and get everything they could possibly want in life!

On the flip side, shouldn't everyone be equal? Just because someone can sing well, play tennis better or whatever, doesn't mean that because they make a mistake they should be penalised more harshly.

My point is, sometimes it is a good idea to give harsher penalties, it gets results, but sometimes it's impossible too, because those sort of people can afford hot-shot lawyers to bail them out, we won't ever get an equal system I'm afraid, it's an impossibility, unless we execute for everything.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nippy I'm afraid, it's an impossibility, unless we execute for everything.

Viva La Revolution! I agree in a large part with HLD and Nippy, the crime is what the issue is not the person who has commited it.