Are white-collar financial crimes really “as heinous as every other type of crime”? One federal judge apparently thinks so. ABCNews reports on Sam Israel III’s vain effort, today, to plead guilty to failing to report for his 20-year federal sentence, handed down in April, for defrauding Bayou Group LLC investors of $400 million:
At [his] sentencing hearing [in April] Israel had sought leniency, telling the judge, “I lied to you and I cheated you, and I cannot put into words how sorry I am.”
But U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon showed little compassion, “You were, in every meaning of the sense, a career criminal. You ruined lives. Financial fraud, white-collar crimes are every bit as heinous as every other type of crime and they will be punished severely.”
This is what I don’t get about society today. How is white-collar fraud anything like murder or rape? Where did Judge McMahon learn her values?
How is financial fraud worse that constitutional fraud in which prosecutors intentionally deprive defendants of evidence? Or in which judges — like Barbara Walther — deny parents the right to a full adversary hearing on whether their children are to remain in Texas CPS custody? Is it possible that our national value system is grotesquely distorted? What kind of society values retirement funds more than human life and family relationships?
No, I am not condoning Sam Israel’s fraud. I’m just pleading for some sense of proportion.
More on the story at ABCNews.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
So the little old couple that just lost their life savings to this con man weren’t harmed?
Oh, come on, TBM. Get more creative, Dude! I didn’t say they weren’t harmed. Nor did I say that Sam shouldn’t go to prison. But a human life is worth more than a pile of $$. At least that’s what I was taught. And I just don’t see the point in sending any first-time con artist away for 20 years when we don’t do the same in a lot of murder cases.
LOL, it’s been a long day, hypothetically one of my clients was a real idiot (how hard is it not to answer the question until you are either given a Garrity warning or you are ordered to do so?) and the deal was over before I got there…
And I agree that we need to be more proactive, but since I’m for the return of public hangings, (JK) I doubt we’ll agree on the right punishment range…
The REAL problem, Kurt, is that somebody turned the Universal Hyperbole Generator up to the High setting, and locked it away in a closet somewhere (probably in one of those thousands of abandoned row houses in Baltimore). Surely youv’e noticed it on this blog.
I just think it’s silly to lock up that kind of talent. If he was smart enough to con $400M out of a bunch of investors, he’s probably smart enough to make that much money legitimately to pay them back. Put a tracking chip or a collar on him and send him back to work. You can lock him up at night if you want to. And have him do lots of community service.
“How is financial fraud worse that constitutional fraud in which prosecutors intentionally deprive defendants of evidence?”
OH, PICK ME!! I can answer that one!
Because the one that committed fraud can not always fall back on the claim that his conduct was simply an error made while acting in “good faith”!
As for the criminal in question, at least it doesn’t read like some fabricated crime you see in the press just before the federal prosecutor moves up the ladder (or runs for an office in congress).
Or you could always shoot your husband in the back, watch him bleed to death for 20 minutes and be out already, and get custody of your kids back. I’m sure Sam wants to be treated like a murderer. It just depends; which murderer?
Hugh, what man could shoot his wife in the back, watch her bleed to death for 20 minutes, etc.? I think the answer is “not one”.
I wonder: If a woman were guilty of the same fraud as Mr. Israel, would she not be treated more leniently?
Kurt, yes, it is silly to punish Mr. Israel by locking him away and forcing him to be not only unproductive but also a cost to the taxpayer.
Were we to follow God’s Law here, Mr. Israel would have to repay what he stole not once by two or more times. That seems much better to me – the thief is working and productive and not a burden to the taxpayer.
Disciple, how do you know what God’s law is? And which God? The Jewish one? The Orthodox one? The Catholic one? The Muslim one?
TxBluesMan:
God’s Law can be found in the Bible.
Which God? The one found in the Bible.
How can we be sure? Through Christ’s resurrection – an event which does not occur everyday and which was foretold centuries before it occurred and even when it would occur was foretold. (Please refer to Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:24-27)
How can we be sure of the resurrection of Christ? Through the testimony of the apostles who were eyewitnesses.
Disciple,
So what law for those that don’t believe in your version of the Bible? The Orthodox faith uses a different version than the Protestants, who use a different version than the Roman church. Which one?
Where does that leave the Jews? Or the Muslims?
And what about those that believe in God, but not the Bible (i.e., Deists)? Are you going to force them to follow a ‘God’s law’ that they don’t believe in?
And if you can do that to Mr. Israel, why are you upset about the claim (false, but still a claim) that Texas is trying to force the FLDS to follow the Baptist religion?
If ‘God’s Law’ is good enough for one, it’s good enough for all, right?
Of course, we could do what we have been doing – holding people accountable to civil law, not religious law…
Clever, tx, but transparently flawed.
The civil law in Texas is based on the opinions, political beliefs, biases, philosophies, fantasies and religious beliefs etc. of the Legislators who enact those laws. That same panoply of forces informs the electoral decisions of the voters who elect those Legislators. And in Texas, most voters are conservative Christians. Of course, there is always a percentage of the Legislature composed of idiots. But, as Carl Parker pointed out years ago, it is only fair that the idiots of Texas have representation in Texas government.
What we are seeing with the attempt to expel FLDS from Texas is the imposition of New Testament, revised Christian beliefs concerning plural marriage and the morally correct age of marriage, as well as the morally correct age difference of spouses.
Doran,
I know that, but I was getting at another point.
Disciple spoke of God’s Laws, as outlined in the Bible, and then cited the resurrection of Jesus as an example.
First, God exists, but Jesus ain’t him, but is a mere human that was very gifted and had outstanding principles.
Second, what is now know as the Bible was decided on at the Council of Nicea, under the authority of a pagan emperor, and was partially settled by one of those on the ‘winning’ side beating up an old man on the ‘losing’ side. It ignores many other texts of the time, and is as fallible as the men that wrote it.
No religion born of man, by so-called revelations, etc, has any business telling the rest of us how to live.
Unless of course, Disciple would be willing to live under the dictates of the Sharia, or Talmudic law, etc.
TxBluesMan:
Any law is an attempt to impose someone’s values the standard/ to impose these values upon others. Texas civil law is no exception to that, as Mr. Williams has very aptly argued.
I have read that common law can be reduced to two principles: 1) do what you have said you will do and 2) do not encroach on others.
Christ taught us that God’s Law can be reduced to two principles: 1) love God with all your being and 2) love your neighbour as yourself.
It seems to me that the two principles of common law could be reduced even further to one and that is to love your neighbour as yourself. Treat others as you want to be treated.
In a society in which people of different religious traditions live together, upon what basis can that society build its laws? Does anyone of good will disagree that we should treat others the way we want to be treated? I don’t think so.
For the reasons I listed shortly above, I am convinced that the Bible is God’s Word and contains His Law/Torah/Teachings. We cannot find a better way to order our lives than His Word. From His Word we can learn just what it means to love you neighbour as yourself.
But returning to the world in which we live, a world of different religious cultures, it is necessary to be able to base every law on the lowest common denominator, that principle upon which all can agree – love your neighbour as yourself.
Are we loving our neighbour as ourself, if we forbid a community of Muslims to build a mosque and meet there for special prayers each Friday? Or if we forbid a community of Southern Baptists to build a church and meet there each Sunday?
Or if we tell people whom they can love and build their lives with?
The role of the state is to protect those people living within its jurisdiction – to insuring that they treat one another justly (i.e. the way they would want to be treated themselves). This is the principle of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”: What injury you do to others will be done to you.
Returning to Texas’ treatment of the FLDS, it seems obvious to me (and it has been said again and again) that no one in Texas would want to be treated the way they have been.
But enough about that, I am only repeating what has already been said.
I wasn’t wanting to discuss that actually. My point was that it is better to punish a thief the way God said to do it – that is by making him return or replace what was stolen not once but twofold or more.
That is much better than locking them away at society’s expense.
Mr. Williams,
I would like to point out one error in your answer to TxBluesMan. You wrote:
“What we are seeing with the attempt to expel FLDS from Texas is the imposition of New Testament, revised Christian beliefs concerning plural marriage and the morally correct age of marriage, as well as the morally correct age difference of spouses.”
It is not correct that the New Testament teaches against plural marriage. That is a heresy which came into the Church when the “Church Fathers” decided to follow Roman tradition instead of God’s Law.
Nowhere in God’s Word is polygyny condemned or monogamy held up as the better way. This has all been read into Scripture.
Here is a very good treatment of the subject:
http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm
And here is a challenge from Hugh McBryde:
http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/08/ok-whats-big-deal.html
Up to date there haven’t been any takers.
TxBluesMan:
With what omniscient authority you make this statement:
“First, God exists, but Jesus ain’t him, but is a mere human that was very gifted and had outstanding principles.”
How do you know? Were you there?
The apostles were, and they were convinced that He was more then a very gifted human. They were convinced that He rose from the dead. They were convinced that He was their Lord, the promised Messiah, the Son of God.
To the content of the Bible: Let us divide that into pre-Christ and post-Christ. That which was Scripture during Christ’s advent, the Old Testament, has been testified to by Him by His use of it. That which was written after His earthly ministry had to have been written by either one of the apostles or someone who was closely associated with them. If one compares these apostolic writings with others from that same period, it will be ready apparent that there is a vast difference in quality.
You wrote further:
“No religion born of man, by so-called revelations, etc, has any business telling the rest of us how to live.”
I agree with you, and it is precisely that (i.e. a “religion born of man”) which is the basis of so much of your Texas law – specifically, in this case, those laws which were passed to “get” the FLDS.
Disciple,
Disciple,
The laws that you speak of being passed ‘to get’ the FLDS have actually been in effect in Texas for decades. Bigamy for example, has had the exact same elements of the offense today as it did in 1973. The only difference is an enhanced penalty if the unlawful spouse was an underage child or related to the actor. The same is true of Sexual Assault of a Child – no changes except for the defenses to prosecution – the elements of the offense remained the same.
So if an FLDS plural marriage was illegal in 1973, the same as it is today, how much of a difference is that?
Also, as to your first part – if the Bible is the ‘word of God,’ then why was there a need for the Council of Nicea?
Why does Jesus say “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34) and “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52)?
Well, which is it? Bring a sword, not bring a sword?
Your comment on the apostles proves nothing. I can quote the Quran that states that Jesus was not crucified, that another took his place. So what?
Your statement on the quality of writing is pure baloney – the Illiad was written before the New Testament, as were many other classics.
There is no proof that the Bible is factual, and plenty of evidence that it is not, so again, why is your way the best? Why must the rest of follow the religion born of man, i.e., Christianity?