@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social While true, the actual real stories do explain the obvious disparity.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeless-man-vs-corporate-thief/
@jasonetheridge @Radical_EgoCom Not sure this is the defence you wanted. It gives more details but the problem is still there.
@lauxmyth @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social I don't deny the obvious disparity. The homeless guy's act was a clearly defined crime with a minimum three year sentence. He went through all the motions of robbing a bank, including terrorising a bank teller into handing over cash, even if he only took a single note. He could just as easily (and justifiably) been shot by security or the police.
The corporate aided and abetted an existing fraud, and got a plea deal by cooperating with investigators. Yes, it's still a crime, but a non-violent one. Lots of factors reduce the sentence.
Is it fair? Each case has to be taken on its own merits. In the homeless guy's case, he committed a very real offence, even if he wasn't serious. A terrible error of judgement. Should the judge have been lenient? On the surface, yes (not gone up to 15 years from the minimum 3 etc), but who knows what other factors there were.
@jasonetheridge @Radical_EgoCom Yikes. Listen to you. Both are real crimes.
@lauxmyth @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social Yes. That's what I said.
@jasonetheridge @Radical_EgoCom Did you read the article? Because it just makes it worse. The homeless man was unarmed and only took a single bill from the three stacks of cash the teller surrendered and the CEO committed deliberate fraud. The homeless man was also sentenced without parole. Mind you, the CEO continued to maintain the ongoing fraud whereas the homeless man already felt remorseful during the robbery and then surrendered himself without spending the money.
The point of the post isn't that the judges were unfair, the point is that the system is fucked up and cruel towards those already in the shitter while lenient on those already on top.