Its not about crime

[lotus503]

Its about the effect of prosecution? Too big to fail and too big to prosecute, unfucking real.




http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...ral-admits-tv-us-justice-does-not-apply-banks

"

MARTIN SMITH: You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association. And in that speech, you made a reference to losing sleep at night, worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.

LANNY BREUER: Right.

MARTIN SMITH: Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?

LANNY BREUER: Well, I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand."
​

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Saying that he would want to know and understand the effect of a prosecution is not the same as saying he would not prosecute. Prosecutors routinely have to evaluate the collateral effects of bringing particular cases to help determine whether the best interests of justice would be served by a prosecution.

 

[lotus503]

Saying that he would want to know and understand the effect of a prosecution is not the same as saying he would not prosecute. Prosecutors routinely have to evaluate the collateral effects of bringing particular cases to help determine whether the best interests of justice would be served by a prosecution.

I get it to a degree, my issue is in the last sentence.

"whether the best interests of justice would be served by a prosecution."

So if its deemed prosecuting could damage the economy, the actual crime committed doesnt really matter. Its weighted and measured and allows for people and institutions to be above the law in as much as they have a wider impact.

 

[Jimzz]

^^

In other words no way I get any good Judge positions or support if/when I run for higher office.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I get it to a degree, my issue is in the last sentence.

"whether the best interests of justice would be served by a prosecution."

So if its deemed prosecuting could damage the economy, the actual crime committed doesnt really matter. Its weighted and measured and allows for people and institutions to be above the law in as much as they have a wider impact.

In a hypothetical situation where the prosecution of one individual would cause a nationwide economic meltdown, I would damned sure hope the prosecutor would take that into account before charging. In practice these kinds of extreme consequences are unusual, but I have no problem with a prosecutor taking them into account.

 

[glenn1]

Its about the effect of prosecution? Too big to fail and too big to prosecute, unfucking real.

Do you expect him to act like Javert and be completely oblivious to other potential consequences of prosecution?

 

[lotus503]

In a hypothetical situation where the prosecution of one individual would cause a nationwide economic meltdown, I would damned sure hope the prosecutor would take that into account before charging. In practice these kinds of extreme consequences are unusual, but I have no problem with a prosecutor taking them into account.

I understand having to consider it, I guess my complaint is no individual or institution should be in that position to begin with.

In fact it should be somewhat of a litmus test for institutions. If effective criminal prosecution of an institution or individual would cause such a degree of impact, it shoudl be broken up into the tiniest of bits to not allow that to occur.

I am simply not OK with people breaking the law and getting a free pass because of their impact on the economy.

 

[lotus503]

Do you expect him to act like Javert and be completely oblivious to other potential consequences of prosecution?

No I dont, I think it clearly identifies a problem and these institutions should be broken apart until the impact they have on the economy are lessened to a degree they can be effectively prosecuted.

Then after that breakup they should be prosecuted.

 

[sourn]

In a hypothetical situation where the prosecution of one individual would cause a nationwide economic meltdown, I would damned sure hope the prosecutor would take that into account before charging. In practice these kinds of extreme consequences are unusual, but I have no problem with a prosecutor taking them into account.

In that situation the prosecutor still needs to do his freaking job and prosecute. Even if that means we have to suffer the consequences for letting that one individual accumulate so much power in the first place.

This to big to fail is absolute bullshit. They NEED to fail, they shouldn't have be allowed to get that much power in first place. Even if that means we have to go through hardships, we'd be better off when all is said and done.

What's next we just let bankers run wild helping terrorist, dealers, etc laundry their money. O wait..

 

[davmat787]

FYI: There was a new Frontline episode on PBS last night that discussed this issue, why certain bankers/wall st. persons were not prosecuted. I have not watched it yet, it is on my DVR but Frontline usually does a good job so it might be worth looking for re-airs this week.

 

[airdata]

It's sickening.

Meanwhile, in NY Michael Bloomberg is busy banning soda's larger than 16oz LOL

 

[Geosurface]

Saying that he would want to know and understand the effect of a prosecution is not the same as saying he would not prosecute. Prosecutors routinely have to evaluate the collateral effects of bringing particular cases to help determine whether the best interests of justice would be served by a prosecution.

Or whether race riots might ensue if prosecution is not pursued.

 

[Doppel]

10 Highlights From Frontline Report On Why No Wall Street Execs Are In Jail Over Mortgage Mess

http://consumerist.com/2013/01/23/1...xecs-have-gone-to-jail-over-financial-crisis/

It's sickening.

Meanwhile, in NY Michael Bloomberg is busy banning soda's larger than 16oz LOL

It really is.

The government increasingly becomes a parody of leadership, able to pass laws quickly to criminalize simple activities and which will have zero meaningful impact on any activity they are trying to correct, but something complex they just throw their hands up and let the perpetrators walk.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Or whether race riots might ensue if prosecution is not pursued.

No, but thanks for predictably wedging your personal hero's prosecution into this thread.

 

[Jimzz]

UPDATE

Report: Asst. Atty. General Who Shied Away From Wall Street Prosecutions To Step Down
http://consumerist.com/2013/01/23/r...y-from-wall-street-prosecutions-to-step-down/


Not that it will help, they will just put another stooge in his place and repeat the same.

 

[michal1980]

But when they lock someones dad/mom up for some crime, they sleep well at night be they took a bad guy off the street. No worries that the family has been destroyed and the impact it will have forever on the lives of those family member's.

Or in otherwords, if you are going to steal, cheat, break the law, go very very big.