Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the Jared event (dad donating $2.5) really that different from what Lori Loughlin did? In her mind, these events are equivalent.

Donations for the university itself benefit most if not all the students. LL paid a consultant and lined the pockets of a coach to falsely portray her daughters as athletes.

And one is in the open and the other is a covert fraud that disadvantages other applicants.

Anonymous wrote:How is the Jared event (dad donating $2.5) really that different from what Lori Loughlin did? In her mind, these events are equivalent.

Donations for the university itself benefit most if not all the students. LL paid a consultant and lined the pockets of a coach to falsely portray her daughters as athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she should get jail time. I don't see the point of that. Financial restitution and community service.

The point is deterrence. This is a high publicity case. What is the message if she does not get any jail time?

I think the high publicity aspect always is problematic for justice. I don't think she should receive a harsher sentence because she is famous or has publicity. she should get a similar sentence as someone else with her wealth / attorney skills who committed a fraud type crime in the $15000 range for personal gain (eg. victimless - in that she didn't steal from someone). I am never a fan of using the justice system as a means to make an example of people.

Deterrence is really not effective. The next person will do it differently / think they won't get caught. There were many non celebrities in this group - we hear nothing about them. Most regular folks who aren't celebrities won't take anything from this. Celebrities will continue to find ways to buy their way around a system - they will just pay more to have someone do it better.

It’s not a victimless crime though. Through fraud, she stole a spot for her child that should have gone to someone else.

A lot of kids are only in their college spots because of their parents money - through buying the private education, tutoring, extracurriculars, donations, paying tuition - that got them there. Are they stealing a spot from the super smart kid who is low SES who went to a not so good public and worked two jobs and never did any extras?

Money buys many entrances to college.

None of the above constitutes underhanded cheating...FRAUD. No, what Huffman did is not the same thing. That is why people who commit fraud go to jail while people who get tutors for their children do not. You might like to think it's "the same" but it is not.

Cheating on the SAT by paying someone else to "correct" your child's answers is not the same thing as sending your child to an SAT prep class that will enable your child to perform well independently on the SAT.

A kid who takes it upon himself to do the SAT prep on Kahn is not cheating. The kid who copies the answers of another test taker is cheating.

That this is so hard for some people to comprehend is just really, really sad.

How is the Jared event (dad donating $2.5) really that different from what Lori Loughlin did? In her mind, these events are equivalent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she should get jail time. I don't see the point of that. Financial restitution and community service.

The point is deterrence. This is a high publicity case. What is the message if she does not get any jail time?

I think the high publicity aspect always is problematic for justice. I don't think she should receive a harsher sentence because she is famous or has publicity. she should get a similar sentence as someone else with her wealth / attorney skills who committed a fraud type crime in the $15000 range for personal gain (eg. victimless - in that she didn't steal from someone). I am never a fan of using the justice system as a means to make an example of people.

Deterrence is really not effective. The next person will do it differently / think they won't get caught. There were many non celebrities in this group - we hear nothing about them. Most regular folks who aren't celebrities won't take anything from this. Celebrities will continue to find ways to buy their way around a system - they will just pay more to have someone do it better.

It’s not a victimless crime though. Through fraud, she stole a spot for her child that should have gone to someone else.

And what about Jared Kushner? Did he also steal a spot that should have gone to someone else? His father paid $2.5M to Harvard University to allegedly get his son admitted into the university. His family insists that this donation just before his son was admitted to Harvard was a coincidence.

The fact is that legacy donations that essentially get their lower qualified children accepted to colleges and universities is a fact of life and will not stop. Yes, the way that Huffman, Macy, and Loughlin did it was shady, but it is still victimless. There is no guarantee that the spot would have gone to anyone else. For all you know, if it wasn't their child, then the university would have taken some other legacy with a donation into the school instead and the spot still would not have gone to someone who was on the waiting list.

Make the financial penalty high enough and remove the kid from the admissions spot. The latter has happened. The financial penalty is that she has lost her $15K and will pay an additional $20K penalty. So she has paid $35K and her child is not admitted to college. And you can bet that wherever she does apply to college will definitely do everything above-board and make no allowances for her in order to avoid ending up in the media. So essentially she has been barred from legacy and donation appeal admission and will be going to college only where she can actually qualify. That's a pretty big penalty combination.

That is a paltry penalty for a millionaire and honestly does not serve as a deterrent for other similarly situated parents to not commit this crime. $35,000 is what people like her pay for a year of personal training.

Jail time however does serve as a deterrent.

Which is why you all are horrified that she might serve even a week in jail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she should get jail time. I don't see the point of that. Financial restitution and community service.

The point is deterrence. This is a high publicity case. What is the message if she does not get any jail time?

I think the high publicity aspect always is problematic for justice. I don't think she should receive a harsher sentence because she is famous or has publicity. she should get a similar sentence as someone else with her wealth / attorney skills who committed a fraud type crime in the $15000 range for personal gain (eg. victimless - in that she didn't steal from someone). I am never a fan of using the justice system as a means to make an example of people.

Deterrence is really not effective. The next person will do it differently / think they won't get caught. There were many non celebrities in this group - we hear nothing about them. Most regular folks who aren't celebrities won't take anything from this. Celebrities will continue to find ways to buy their way around a system - they will just pay more to have someone do it better.

It’s not a victimless crime though. Through fraud, she stole a spot for her child that should have gone to someone else.

And what about Jared Kushner? Did he also steal a spot that should have gone to someone else? His father paid $2.5M to Harvard University to allegedly get his son admitted into the university. His family insists that this donation just before his son was admitted to Harvard was a coincidence.

The fact is that legacy donations that essentially get their lower qualified children accepted to colleges and universities is a fact of life and will not stop. Yes, the way that Huffman, Macy, and Loughlin did it was shady, but it is still victimless. There is no guarantee that the spot would have gone to anyone else. For all you know, if it wasn't their child, then the university would have taken some other legacy with a donation into the school instead and the spot still would not have gone to someone who was on the waiting list.

Make the financial penalty high enough and remove the kid from the admissions spot. The latter has happened. The financial penalty is that she has lost her $15K and will pay an additional $20K penalty. So she has paid $35K and her child is not admitted to college. And you can bet that wherever she does apply to college will definitely do everything above-board and make no allowances for her in order to avoid ending up in the media. So essentially she has been barred from legacy and donation appeal admission and will be going to college only where she can actually qualify. That's a pretty big penalty combination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She could get home detention.

Which I feel like is nice and relaxing for rich people. They can stay in their mansion, maybe work on some house projects, maybe redesign the craft room, and any work that has to get done people will just come to them. The yoga instructor can come to the house, the chef can come to the house, etc etc.

True but they pay a much much higher price in terms of the public nature of the discussion of their crime. They get followed, photographed, talked about on TV, news, and internet. The personal and professional impact is much greater in the sense that everyone knows and judges. There were 33 parents arrested / charged. How many of them do you know their name and picture. How many have had hundreds / thousands of news articles about them? How many of them are having their every work and action dissected by the public?

And?

That's their job. They were perfectly happy being followed, discussing every aspect of their lives for the cameras, and even lying about 'how hard' their kids worked on TV before this. Now the truth comes out and the cameras are a burden?

One is about their professional life and one is about their personal life. Not the same at all.

They committed crimes, they should be sentenced accordingly - their celebrity status should not be part of the equation.

Umm no. Their personal life and professional lives intersect. Why else would Lori have brought her daughter onto the Today Show?

Why would have William Macy have brought up his daughters in an interview about his new tv show season?

Why would Brangelina have sold their twins birth photos for hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Their isn't a line and you don't get to share what you like and shut it down when those same reporters come back with negative coverage.

Correction, it was MILLIONS. $4 million for Shiloh. $14 million for the twins.

I'd forgotten how crazy people were for that couple. http://www.today.com/id/25967334/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/source-jolie-pitt-baby-pics-fetch-million/#.XXu9dmYpCUk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She'll get what the prosecution recommended. It sends a message to Laughlin and the others that this is serious business.

If she gets 1 month, Lori is looking at least 5 years (she's facing up to 20 and if she plead guilty would have gotten 2).

Or maybe she'll pay off the judge too.

Anonymous wrote:She'll get what the prosecution recommended. It sends a message to Laughlin and the others that this is serious business.

If she gets 1 month, Lori is looking at least 5 years (she's facing up to 20 and if she plead guilty would have gotten 2).

She'll get what the prosecution recommended. It sends a message to Laughlin and the others that this is serious business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She could get home detention.

Which I feel like is nice and relaxing for rich people. They can stay in their mansion, maybe work on some house projects, maybe redesign the craft room, and any work that has to get done people will just come to them. The yoga instructor can come to the house, the chef can come to the house, etc etc.

True but they pay a much much higher price in terms of the public nature of the discussion of their crime. They get followed, photographed, talked about on TV, news, and internet. The personal and professional impact is much greater in the sense that everyone knows and judges. There were 33 parents arrested / charged. How many of them do you know their name and picture. How many have had hundreds / thousands of news articles about them? How many of them are having their every work and action dissected by the public?

And?

That's their job. They were perfectly happy being followed, discussing every aspect of their lives for the cameras, and even lying about 'how hard' their kids worked on TV before this. Now the truth comes out and the cameras are a burden?

One is about their professional life and one is about their personal life. Not the same at all.

They committed crimes, they should be sentenced accordingly - their celebrity status should not be part of the equation.

Umm no. Their personal life and professional lives intersect. Why else would Lori have brought her daughter onto the Today Show?

Why would have William Macy have brought up his daughters in an interview about his new tv show season?

Why would Brangelina have sold their twins birth photos for hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Their isn't a line and you don't get to share what you like and shut it down when those same reporters come back with negative coverage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She could get home detention.

Which I feel like is nice and relaxing for rich people. They can stay in their mansion, maybe work on some house projects, maybe redesign the craft room, and any work that has to get done people will just come to them. The yoga instructor can come to the house, the chef can come to the house, etc etc.

True but they pay a much much higher price in terms of the public nature of the discussion of their crime. They get followed, photographed, talked about on TV, news, and internet. The personal and professional impact is much greater in the sense that everyone knows and judges. There were 33 parents arrested / charged. How many of them do you know their name and picture. How many have had hundreds / thousands of news articles about them? How many of them are having their every work and action dissected by the public?

And?

That's their job. They were perfectly happy being followed, discussing every aspect of their lives for the cameras, and even lying about 'how hard' their kids worked on TV before this. Now the truth comes out and the cameras are a burden?

One is about their professional life and one is about their personal life. Not the same at all.

They committed crimes, they should be sentenced accordingly - their celebrity status should not be part of the equation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she should get jail time. I don't see the point of that. Financial restitution and community service.

The point is deterrence. This is a high publicity case. What is the message if she does not get any jail time?

I think the high publicity aspect always is problematic for justice. I don't think she should receive a harsher sentence because she is famous or has publicity. she should get a similar sentence as someone else with her wealth / attorney skills who committed a fraud type crime in the $15000 range for personal gain (eg. victimless - in that she didn't steal from someone). I am never a fan of using the justice system as a means to make an example of people.

Deterrence is really not effective. The next person will do it differently / think they won't get caught. There were many non celebrities in this group - we hear nothing about them. Most regular folks who aren't celebrities won't take anything from this. Celebrities will continue to find ways to buy their way around a system - they will just pay more to have someone do it better.

It’s not a victimless crime though. Through fraud, she stole a spot for her child that should have gone to someone else.

A lot of kids are only in their college spots because of their parents money - through buying the private education, tutoring, extracurriculars, donations, paying tuition - that got them there. Are they stealing a spot from the super smart kid who is low SES who went to a not so good public and worked two jobs and never did any extras?

Money buys many entrances to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she should get jail time. I don't see the point of that. Financial restitution and community service.

The point is deterrence. This is a high publicity case. What is the message if she does not get any jail time?

I think the high publicity aspect always is problematic for justice. I don't think she should receive a harsher sentence because she is famous or has publicity. she should get a similar sentence as someone else with her wealth / attorney skills who committed a fraud type crime in the $15000 range for personal gain (eg. victimless - in that she didn't steal from someone). I am never a fan of using the justice system as a means to make an example of people.

Deterrence is really not effective. The next person will do it differently / think they won't get caught. There were many non celebrities in this group - we hear nothing about them. Most regular folks who aren't celebrities won't take anything from this. Celebrities will continue to find ways to buy their way around a system - they will just pay more to have someone do it better.

It’s not a victimless crime though. Through fraud, she stole a spot for her child that should have gone to someone else.

You mean somebody that paid money to the school instead of a testing facility.

A) She didn't pay a testing facility. She paid a 20-something man to fradaulent swap out test scores for a daughter who otherwise wouldn't have qualified.

B) I think the PP means someone whose kid studied for the SATs and scored a sufficiently high enough test score on their own merits to gain admittance.

What's the point of having kids in college who can't study for themselves and are too stupid to go?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She could get home detention.

Which I feel like is nice and relaxing for rich people. They can stay in their mansion, maybe work on some house projects, maybe redesign the craft room, and any work that has to get done people will just come to them. The yoga instructor can come to the house, the chef can come to the house, etc etc.

True but they pay a much much higher price in terms of the public nature of the discussion of their crime. They get followed, photographed, talked about on TV, news, and internet. The personal and professional impact is much greater in the sense that everyone knows and judges. There were 33 parents arrested / charged. How many of them do you know their name and picture. How many have had hundreds / thousands of news articles about them? How many of them are having their every work and action dissected by the public?

These are B list actors. The paps don't follow waste their time following them around. The only reason they re-surfaced is b/c of their crime(s).