Punishment for Crimes committed by Government Officials

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[Lil_SlimShady]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's say an average citizen breaks the law, and gets 1 year in jail for it.
I think if a police officer breaks the same law, he/she should get 10 years for it.

Basically I think our government officials should be held to a higher standard then ordinary citizens.

This article made me think of it:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... s_occu.php

I think the officers that committed perjury should be jailed for 10 years.

I generally agree, though I think the harsher penalty bit should mostly be if the crime is relevant to their position.

I am not sure wildlife inspector should pay a much harsher penatly for violating a building code in his house, for example.. but a building inspector who builds a sub-standard apartment complex should get more than "the book" thrown at them!

[BigBallinStalin]

Politicians should face harsher punishment; however, since they are the ones who legislate these laws, then is it reasonable to expect them to vote against their own self-interest? Think public choice.

[Lootifer]

Yes.

[Night Strike]

Considering the current administration has purposely hired tax cheats and others, don't expect anything remotely like your idea to be adopted.

[CreepersWiener]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

Police and Government officials 2:1
Celebrities...10:1

[jonesthecurl]

Let's say an average citizen breaks the law, and gets 1 year in jail for it.
I think if a police officer breaks the same law, he/she should get 10 years for it.

Basically I think our government officials should be held to a higher standard then ordinary citizens.

This article made me think of it:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... s_occu.php

I think the officers that committed perjury should be jailed for 10 years.

I generally agree, though I think the harsher penalty bit should mostly be if the crime is relevant to their position.

I am not sure wildlife inspector should pay a much harsher penatly for violating a building code in his house, for example.. but a building inspector who builds a sub-standard apartment complex should get more than "the book" thrown at them!

Just what I was thinking: if a police officer lies to get a conviction, that's worse than if he cheats on his taxes. If a health inspector gives a friend's restaurant the "OK" when it doesn't deserve it, that's worse than if he parks illegally. And so forth.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes.

[Lil_SlimShady]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

Police and Government officials 2:1
Celebrities...10:1

Couldn't agree more. Especially for drinking and driving (yes Lindsay Lohan, I`m talking about you in case if you play CC). With the effect that their behavior has on young kids they have more influence over them than the government politicians.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

Police and Government officials 2:1
Celebrities...10:1

Couldn't agree more. Especially for drinking and driving (yes Lindsay Lohan, I`m talking about you in case if you play CC). With the effect that their behavior has on young kids they have more influence over them than the government politicians.

That's stupid.

@OP

I'd say rather than increasing punishment, extra charges should be filed, so that the punishment for the same crime remains the same. In other words, if a gov't official knowingly abuses his power or station to commit infractions, instead of scaling the reparations/jail time to fit, charges of "abuse of power" or whatever be concurrently filed and the punishment for that added to the base punishment for the original infraction. Otherwise, the "scale" is subject to changing and would be ridiculous.

-TG

[Lootifer]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

Police and Government officials 2:1
Celebrities...10:1

Couldn't agree more. Especially for drinking and driving (yes Lindsay Lohan, I`m talking about you in case if you play CC). With the effect that their behavior has on young kids they have more influence over them than the government politicians.

That's stupid.

@OP

I'd say rather than increasing punishment, extra charges should be filed, so that the punishment for the same crime remains the same. In other words, if a gov't official knowingly abuses his power or station to commit infractions, instead of scaling the reparations/jail time to fit, charges of "abuse of power" or whatever be concurrently filed and the punishment for that added to the base punishment for the original infraction. Otherwise, the "scale" is subject to changing and would be ridiculous.

-TG

Good call. But I suggest "abuse of power" can be levelled against celebs and the ultra rich as well.

[thegreekdog]

They do have a higher degree of duty towards the society than an average individual. I disagree with the 10:1 ratio for imprisonment but I do agree that it has to be higher than normally.

Police and Government officials 2:1
Celebrities...10:1

Couldn't agree more. Especially for drinking and driving (yes Lindsay Lohan, I`m talking about you in case if you play CC). With the effect that their behavior has on young kids they have more influence over them than the government politicians.

Let's get to 1:1 for celebrities before we think about upping the punishment ratio.

[PLAYER57832]

Considering the current administration has purposely hired tax cheats and others, don't expect anything remotely like your idea to be adopted.

Oh, like prior administrations were all so peachy honest???

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The problem with the charging "celebrities" imo is a bit absurd and avoiding responsibility. If, to take the example of Ms. Lohan, we were to charge her with additional charges because she influences young pre-teens, I'd say we need to look to our parenting if the parents allow that kind of full mind-control from a celebrity. Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does. But to charge her extra is ridiculous because everybody should be responsible for their own actions, not the actions of somebody she'll never meet.

Imo it would become quite a confused jumble if we were to charge celebrities with additional abuse of power or influence because (1) of what I mentioned above, and (2) even if one were to disagree with (1), then how does one judge how much influence a celebrity has? Does Ms. Lohan have more influence than some other actor/singer/do-nothing? Do we rate these based on earned income, ratings, whatever TMZ says?

Quite ridiculous.

-TG

[Lil_SlimShady]

Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does.

See, the difference is that her misbehaving attracts the attention of national newscasters and tabloids, which does not happen when Joe Everyman decides to get plastered (unless he hits a pedestrian, you won't find an article about his drinking and speeding in the next morning's newspaper). If the individual chose to live the rest of his life as a public figure who has his personal life examined under a spotlight then he should bear a higher degree of responsibility for his actions. Once Ms. Lohan became a public figure she has lost a certain percentage of control over her life and transferred it over to the public; and just like the public holds a responsibility to protect such an individual (through providing security at public events and increasing privacy privileges) so does such an individual hold a heightened responsibility to the general public.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does.

See, the difference is that her misbehaving attracts the attention of national newscasters and tabloids, which does not happen when Joe Everyman decides to get plastered (unless he hits a pedestrian, you won't find an article about his drinking and speeding in the next morning's newspaper). If the individual chose to live the rest of his life as a public figure who has his personal life examined under a spotlight then he should bear a higher degree of responsibility for his actions. Once Ms. Lohan became a public figure she has lost a certain percentage of control over her life and transferred it over to the public; and just like the public holds a responsibility to protect such an individual (through providing security at public events and increasing privacy privileges) so does such an individual hold a heightened responsibility to the general public.

So according to you we are helpless, tractable zombies who can't decide our own actions, only able to imitate the lives of those rich and famous beautiful people and thus they are responsible for the travails of man?

As I said before, the whole assertion is stupid. Should John Wayne be blamed for anti-gay violence? Should Lynyrd Skynyrd be labeled as KKK just because some redneck hicks listen to them?

Where do these spheres of influence end? How about a local celebrity? Should the weatherman on my local news radio be punished more if he gets a DUI? Or is he not famous enough?

ITT: SlimShady, Lootifer, et al would only commit crimes if they saw or read of a celebrity doing it. Therefore, ban all media output and crime will cease to exist!

-TG

[Lil_SlimShady]

Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does.

See, the difference is that her misbehaving attracts the attention of national newscasters and tabloids, which does not happen when Joe Everyman decides to get plastered (unless he hits a pedestrian, you won't find an article about his drinking and speeding in the next morning's newspaper). If the individual chose to live the rest of his life as a public figure who has his personal life examined under a spotlight then he should bear a higher degree of responsibility for his actions. Once Ms. Lohan became a public figure she has lost a certain percentage of control over her life and transferred it over to the public; and just like the public holds a responsibility to protect such an individual (through providing security at public events and increasing privacy privileges) so does such an individual hold a heightened responsibility to the general public.

So according to you we are helpless, tractable zombies who can't decide our own actions, only able to imitate the lives of those rich and famous beautiful people and thus they are responsible for the travails of man?

As I said before, the whole assertion is stupid. Should John Wayne be blamed for anti-gay violence? Should Lynyrd Skynyrd be labeled as KKK just because some redneck hicks listen to them?

Where do these spheres of influence end? How about a local celebrity? Should the weatherman on my local news radio be punished more if he gets a DUI? Or is he not famous enough?

-TG

Yes, the spheres of influence are hard to define, I agree. It becomes even harder since everyone is exposed to some sort of social media and thus posses a certain influence over their peers. Should I hold responsibility for something that my FB post said, for example.

However, it would be nice to see those in a position to really proclaim influence over the young individuals (who do exhibit behaviors of mindless sheep (probably due to neglecting parents)) receive a harsher punishment than a slap on the wrists. The Paris Hilton prison sentencing was a fucking joke, along with the rest of troubled ex-teen stars. My sisters are growing up watching the next generation of those troubled stars, and although I don't believe in the TV doing the parenting of my siblings, you can't shelter them from everything.

Thus, people who should hold a higher degree of responsibility are those that specialize in children/teen shows. A 13 year old is not going to follow your weather man on twitter, but she might do so with Ms. Lohan.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Haha it's like you're not even considering the implications of what you're saying. By adding punishment/charges that are only applicable to celebrities, you also create avenues of blame in other cases. Let's say a 13-year old fan of Ms. Lohan gets drunk and takes her parents' vehicle out for a spin. She wrecks and dies. According to you, Ms. Lohan, who's never met the child, is now responsible for vehicular manslaughter. Let's use this for all such cases of people in the 11-21 age range, and Ms. Lohan is now facing the death penalty or infinity jail time.

Once Ms. Lohan became a public figure she has lost a certain percentage of control over her life and transferred it over to the public;

I now own part of Ms. Lohan and other celebrities? I now exercise my rights as partial owner of public property to see my favorite beauties in the buff. They are publicly owned and therefore have no say in the matter. I also dictate that they can't see any other people.

-TG

[Lil_SlimShady]

Haha it's like you're not even considering the implications of what you're saying. By adding punishment/charges that are only applicable to celebrities, you also create avenues of blame in other cases. Let's say a 13-year old fan of Ms. Lohan gets drunk and takes her parents' vehicle out for a spin. She wrecks and dies. According to you, Ms. Lohan, who's never met the child, is now responsible for vehicular manslaughter. Let's use this for all such cases of people in the 11-21 age range, and Ms. Lohan is now facing the death penalty or infinity jail time.

Once Ms. Lohan became a public figure she has lost a certain percentage of control over her life and transferred it over to the public;

I now own part of Ms. Lohan and other celebrities? I now exercise my rights as partial owner of public property to see my favorite beauties in the buff. They are publicly owned and therefore have no say in the matter. I also dictate that they can't see any other people.

-TG

You are twisting my words to an extreme. I am not saying that Ms. Lohan should receive a punishment for an action of someone else. It is her own behavior that should be scrutinized to a higher degree to prevent bad influences. I am not saying, "Let's make celebrities the scapegoats for our children's misbehavior." All I am saying is that they need a higher incentive to obey the law for the benefit of the general public, since clearly, the laws that we have in place are not enough to control them. For example, Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna. He got a five year probation and not a minute of jail time for the brutal assault that he pleaded guilty to! Now, domestic violence happens everyday and is a private matter, but this got the attention of millions of viewers. Do you know what the message that young boys got from all of this - "It's cool to beat up my girlfriend if I think she is cheating for me, I ain't going to go to jail for it." Now, I am over generalizing, but you have got to admit that it is slightly a possibility. Their actions have higher consequences on the general public than yours or mine, and thus bear a higher degree of influence, and thus require a higher degree of responsibility. Remember Spider Man? With great power, comes great responsibility. They have great power. Maybe not over you, or me, or anyone else on CC, but they do have it over kids.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You are twisting my words to an extreme. I am not saying that Ms. Lohan should receive a punishment for an action of someone else.

I am illuminating the effects of your rabble-rousing. These are the logical conclusions to what you propose. You stated that their (celebrities') influence affects others; therefore, they are responsible.

For example, Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna. He got a five year probation and not a minute of jail time for the brutal assault that he pleaded guilty to!

Never said that celebrities should be exempt from punishment. A crime is a crime, and a punishment should be allotted equally. Saying that Brown should receive ten times the jail time for assault as Joe Misogynist Everyman because he's on the tv is absurd. Is his crime greater? Is Rihanna's suffering greater than the multitude of other victims of domestic abuse? Does Brown beating a woman inspire other misogynists to beat women?

-TG

[Lil_SlimShady]

For example, Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna. He got a five year probation and not a minute of jail time for the brutal assault that he pleaded guilty to!

Never said that celebrities should be exempt from punishment. A crime is a crime, and a punishment should be allotted equally. Saying that Brown should receive ten times the jail time for assault as Joe Misogynist Everyman because he's on the tv is absurd. Is his crime greater? Is Rihanna's suffering greater than the multitude of other victims of domestic abuse? Does Brown beating a woman inspire other misogynists to beat women?

-TG

But it seems as if the justice system shows a certain degree of leeway towards them that I don't personally think is allowed specifically because of their celebrity status. How many drinking and driving infractions have Ms. Lohan acquired? If it was me, and not a TV celebrity, I would have ended up in jail a long time ago. One time she got caught drinking and driving without a freaking license. My friend, unfortunately, was in the same situation. He got a week's sentencing, got his license taken away, and has a breathalyzer installed in his car. What does she have? Why does an average Joe bear a tougher sentence than a well publicly known individual. Throughout history, examples have been made of public figures who threatened the stability of others, and that is exactly what her behavior does on the next generation of teenagers. She should receive a tougher sentence, not a slap on the wrist.


(Keeping in mind the differences between legislation in Canada and USA)

[thegreekdog]

The problem with the charging "celebrities" imo is a bit absurd and avoiding responsibility. If, to take the example of Ms. Lohan, we were to charge her with additional charges because she influences young pre-teens, I'd say we need to look to our parenting if the parents allow that kind of full mind-control from a celebrity. Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does. But to charge her extra is ridiculous because everybody should be responsible for their own actions, not the actions of somebody she'll never meet.

Imo it would become quite a confused jumble if we were to charge celebrities with additional abuse of power or influence because (1) of what I mentioned above, and (2) even if one were to disagree with (1), then how does one judge how much influence a celebrity has? Does Ms. Lohan have more influence than some other actor/singer/do-nothing? Do we rate these based on earned income, ratings, whatever TMZ says?

Quite ridiculous.

-TG

Again, I'm not sure we're at the point where Ms. Lohan is receiving the same punishments as Joe Everyman. And that doesn't help your argument.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem with the charging "celebrities" imo is a bit absurd and avoiding responsibility. If, to take the example of Ms. Lohan, we were to charge her with additional charges because she influences young pre-teens, I'd say we need to look to our parenting if the parents allow that kind of full mind-control from a celebrity. Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does. But to charge her extra is ridiculous because everybody should be responsible for their own actions, not the actions of somebody she'll never meet.

Imo it would become quite a confused jumble if we were to charge celebrities with additional abuse of power or influence because (1) of what I mentioned above, and (2) even if one were to disagree with (1), then how does one judge how much influence a celebrity has? Does Ms. Lohan have more influence than some other actor/singer/do-nothing? Do we rate these based on earned income, ratings, whatever TMZ says?

Quite ridiculous.

-TG

Again, I'm not sure we're at the point where Ms. Lohan is receiving the same punishments as Joe Everyman. And that doesn't help your argument.

But that serves as indictment of the justice system--not of Ms. Lohan herself.

[thegreekdog]

The problem with the charging "celebrities" imo is a bit absurd and avoiding responsibility. If, to take the example of Ms. Lohan, we were to charge her with additional charges because she influences young pre-teens, I'd say we need to look to our parenting if the parents allow that kind of full mind-control from a celebrity. Ms. Lohan is an individual, and if she wants to go out plastered and drive, then that's her choice and in that respect she's no different than anybody else. She should pay the price Joe Everyman does. But to charge her extra is ridiculous because everybody should be responsible for their own actions, not the actions of somebody she'll never meet.

Imo it would become quite a confused jumble if we were to charge celebrities with additional abuse of power or influence because (1) of what I mentioned above, and (2) even if one were to disagree with (1), then how does one judge how much influence a celebrity has? Does Ms. Lohan have more influence than some other actor/singer/do-nothing? Do we rate these based on earned income, ratings, whatever TMZ says?

Quite ridiculous.

-TG

Again, I'm not sure we're at the point where Ms. Lohan is receiving the same punishments as Joe Everyman. And that doesn't help your argument.

But that serves as indictment of the justice system--not of Ms. Lohan herself.

Correct. But if we have mandatory minimums for celebrities, solves the problem.