College entrance cheating scandal

[starry_solo]

I do agree that the public seemingly always wants a pound of flesh before an individual has their day in court. Are they more than likely guilty? Yes, but I hold judgement until there's a legitimate judgement. I also don't believe that Lori Laughlin getting 40 years or Felicity Huffman picking up roadkill on the side of the road will have any impact on the public perception that wealth can buy out of trouble nor do I see it as a deterrent for other celebrities to do the same exact thing. There are tons of stories about parents "donating" a library or a wing to a college and their kid magically getting accepted to said college, they just had more money to bribe the school up front.

Except in those cases (donating a building) more than one person benefits. Maybe that's how they get around it....all students benefit from a new library, medical school, new hospital wing.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

If you're not satisfied, get involved and campaign for more.

I appreciate your conviction, but honestly I already do too much already.

 

[Imzadi]

Tom Cruise's old movie, The Firm, was on last nite. I usually don't rewatch his old movies. But, this one has a section about: (SPOILER ALERT!)



mail fraud in it. It's a thing not to be sneezed at.

Spoiler: snipped lines of movie

Here are the lines, sipped from the IMDb.com:

Mitch McDeere : I got mine, Wayne, you get the rest of them.

Wayne Tarrance : Get 'em with what? Overbilling, mail fraud? Oh, that's exciting.

Mitch McDeere : It's not sexy, but it's got teeth! Ten thousand dollars and five years in prison. That's ten and five for each act. Have you really looked at that? You've got every partner in the firm on overbilling. There's two hundred fifty acts of documented mail fraud there. That's racketeering! That's minimum one thousand, two hundred fifty years in prison and half a million dollars in fines. That's more than you had on Capone.​

 

[rigs32]

I am a criminal lawyer. I handle about 120 felony cases a year. A simple, straightforward case would take about two days to prepare for trial and three days to do a trial start to finish. The most complicated case I've ever tried lasted four weeks and took about that much time to prepare.

I don't think people realize just how many more attorneys, judges, and court staff would be needed (at taxpayers expense) if most cases went to trial.

 

[Floridaman999]

I am a criminal lawyer. I handle about 120 felony cases a year. A simple, straightforward case would take about two days to prepare for trial and three days to do a trial start to finish. The most complicated case I've ever tried lasted four weeks and took about that much time to prepare.

I don't think people realize just how many more attorneys, judges, and court staff would be needed (at taxpayers expense) if most cases went to trial.

I agree with you completely. It seems that plea bargains are now a normal and expected aspect of the process. Heck, it has been for years and years. I would hate to see what would happen if people started denying the plea deal and going to trial on a mass scale. It would probably shut things down in a big way. Could there be a speedy trial argument made if something like that happened? I always wondered how a "speedy trial" is defined.

 

[rigs32]

Could there be a speedy trial argument made if something like that happened? I always wondered how a "speedy trial" is defined.

In NY, speedy trial is within 30 days of a violation, 90 days on a misdemeanor, and 6 months on a felony after the filing of a felony complaint. A defendant can waive that time if they're negotiating with the prosecutor. And certain time periods, like time to draft and file motions, are also excluded from that time.

New York put a "standards and goals" program into place a couple years ago where all felony cases had to go to trial within six months of arraignment on an indictment. Sometimes autopsies and forensic testing can take several months, so there can be some frustration with competing time limitations.

New York also just past a law requiring all evidence to be turned over within fifteen DAYS of arraignment and no one is sure how that will even be possible when there is no additional money for staffing at the crime labs, medical examiners offices, or other agencies that have to complete work for criminal cases.

 

[Floridaman999]

In NY, speedy trial is within 30 days of a violation, 90 days on a misdemeanor, and 6 months on a felony after the filing of a felony complaint. A defendant can waive that time if they're negotiating with the prosecutor. And certain time periods, like time to draft and file motions, are also excluded from that time.

New York put a "standards and goals" program into place a couple years ago where all felony cases had to go to trial within six months of arraignment on an indictment. Sometimes autopsies and forensic testing can take several months, so there can be some frustration with competing time limitations.

New York also just past a law requiring all evidence to be turned over within fifteen DAYS of arraignment and no one is sure how that will even be possible when there is no additional money for staffing at the crime labs, medical examiners offices, or other agencies that have to complete work for criminal cases.

Thanks for the info and details. That fifteen day requirement sounds like a real problem in the making. I can only imagine that kind of requirement will probably make plea bargaining even more important? Maybe the ability to plea it out within that time frame will be more beneficial to all involved as opposed to the new requirement? Is there a way for both sides to agree that the 15 day requirement will not be used in any particular case?

I understand if you don't have the time to get that involved with my questions, but figured I'd ask them just in case you did. I appreciate learning as much as I can about this type of process from those who are actually involved. Thanks again for the reply.

 

[cabanafrau]

In NY, speedy trial is within 30 days of a violation, 90 days on a misdemeanor, and 6 months on a felony after the filing of a felony complaint. A defendant can waive that time if they're negotiating with the prosecutor. And certain time periods, like time to draft and file motions, are also excluded from that time.

New York put a "standards and goals" program into place a couple years ago where all felony cases had to go to trial within six months of arraignment on an indictment. Sometimes autopsies and forensic testing can take several months, so there can be some frustration with competing time limitations.

New York also just past a law requiring all evidence to be turned over within fifteen DAYS of arraignment and no one is sure how that will even be possible when there is no additional money for staffing at the crime labs, medical examiners offices, or other agencies that have to complete work for criminal cases.

That's very interesting. Will be something to see how it all shakes out.

 

[bcla]

I agree with you completely. It seems that plea bargains are now a normal and expected aspect of the process. Heck, it has been for years and years. I would hate to see what would happen if people started denying the plea deal and going to trial on a mass scale. It would probably shut things down in a big way. Could there be a speedy trial argument made if something like that happened? I always wondered how a "speedy trial" is defined.

I heard about bit on an interview with someone who did a piece reporting on the criminal justice system. Apparently about 95% of convictions are a result of plea bargains.

 

[bcla]

I do agree that the public seemingly always wants a pound of flesh before an individual has their day in court. Are they more than likely guilty? Yes, but I hold judgement until there's a legitimate judgement. I also don't believe that Lori Laughlin getting 40 years or Felicity Huffman picking up roadkill on the side of the road will have any impact on the public perception that wealth can buy out of trouble nor do I see it as a deterrent for other celebrities to do the same exact thing. There are tons of stories about parents "donating" a library or a wing to a college and their kid magically getting accepted to said college, they just had more money to bribe the school up front.

The issue with that is that it's not as cheap to do it these days - especially if one is targeting a top 25 university. Also - top public universities aren't supposed to do that sort of thing, and many of the target schools in this scandal are public where a coach was accused of vouching for someone as an athletic recruit.

Felicity Huffman was accused of spending $15,000 to perpetrate testing fraud. That's pretty mild in the scale of all this and possibly why she's getting off pretty easy with a guilty plea. Lori Loughlin and her husband are alleged to have spent about a half million dollars partially disguised as tax-deductible contributions. These are chump change amounts compared to how much it really costs these days to have a donation openly (and theoretically legally) influence the admission process.

I heard the going rate is possibly starting at about $10 million. There was Dr Dre mouthing off that his daughter didn't need any help getting into USC, only he and Jimmy Iovine donated $70 million to help fund a building project at USC. Granted - decades ago it probably cost way less to create that sort of influence with admissions, but that was also at a time when there were fewer applicants. The number of elite schools hasn't really gone up, but the prospective student population has. Look up the historic acceptance rates at these schools. Back when I was applying for college these elite schools might have a 15-17% acceptance rate. It can be 5-7% now.

 

[LSUmiss]

I heard about bit on an interview with someone who did a piece reporting on the criminal justice system. Apparently about 95% of convictions are a result of plea bargains.

And the problem is that usually negatively affects minorities & the poor more than others.

 

[barkley]

I agree with you completely. It seems that plea bargains are now a normal and expected aspect of the process. Heck, it has been for years and years. I would hate to see what would happen if people started denying the plea deal and going to trial on a mass scale. It would probably shut things down in a big way. Could there be a speedy trial argument made if something like that happened? I always wondered how a "speedy trial" is defined.

it could cause HUGE problems and i know of a large group of people who used this to their advantage.

a friend's mom participated in the dakota pipeline protests and got arrested along with ALLOT of others. rather than agreeing to a plea deal and paying the fine a bunch of them demanded their right to a speedy trial AND requested to be evaluated for public defenders. the courts there didn't have enough staff to handle this in addition to their regular court demands and as a result charges were very quietly dropped.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

I think the punishment in this case is going to be important to our society as a whole because I think looking the other way on this one would have very damaging implications in a wide variety of ways.

If someone chooses to view an idea like mine of house arrest, substantial fines and plenty of hard, not very pleasant hours of community service as vengeful, so be it. I'd have no problem explaining to a court the line of reasoning behind all three prongs of punishment I've outlined and exactly what result I am seeking to achieve with each prong.

I, for one, am fine with those types of punishments for these offenders.

What I am NOT fine with is those who are gleefully cheering on the idea that celebrities should be thrown into cell blocks with the general population so they can be harassed, beat up, and/or raped.

 

[cabanafrau]

I, for one, am fine with those types of punishments for these offenders.

What I am NOT fine with is those who are gleefully cheering on the idea that celebrities should be thrown into cell blocks with the general population so they can be harassed, beat up, and/or raped.

Only someone who is very ill informed would begin to think that's a possibility. Those who run the correctional facilities absolutely understand that they will be held liable if a celebrity in particular is harmed while in their custody. A prisoner of status would be assigned a protective custody placement if necessary. Specifically as to those charged in the college scandal at most they will face a medium security facility, most likely minimum security, and would not even be in any type of general population situation with violent felons. As I have said in response to you before, even maximum security facilities are not rampant with the rape culture as you suggest. That culture seems more likely to flourish much better via a system of deliberate denials on college campuses these days.

 

[Floridaman999]

Only someone who is very ill informed would begin to think that's a possibility. Those who run the correctional facilities absolutely understand that they will be held liable if a celebrity in particular is harmed while in their custody. A prisoner of status would be assigned a protective custody placement if necessary. Specifically as to those charged in the college scandal at most they will face a medium security facility, most likely minimum security, and would not even be in any type of general population situation with violent felons. As I have said in response to you before, even maximum security facilities are not rampant with the rape culture as you suggest. That culture seems more likely to flourish much better via a system of deliberate denials on college campuses these days.

I don't think it's that any of it is running rampant or anyone truly believes it is. I think it's that so many seem to WANT it to happen for whatever reason. It kinda makes me sick.

 

[cabanafrau]

I don't think it's that any of it is running rampant or anyone truly believes it is. I think it's that so many seem to WANT it to happen for whatever reason. It kinda makes me sick.

To be clear, I am not saying I'm in favor of any kind of tortuous correctional system. Although I will admit there are felons I believe belong under the jail because they have done such heinous things.

 

[kdonnel]

There are tons of stories about parents "donating" a library or a wing to a college and their kid magically getting accepted to said college, they just had more money to bribe the school up front.

You are describing the official back door entry method to college.

The story that broke was a new side door entry method to college.

Perhaps the schools should create an official side door policy for those without enough money to buy an entire building. You get enough people to give a classroom amount of money each year and after a couple years, the college gets a building.

Instead of not needing to meet any qualifications like the back door method, the prospective student would have to meet a significantly lowered admission standards for the donate a classroom method.

 

[gwynne]

To be clear, I am not saying I'm in favor of any kind of tortuous correctional system.

I agree, and I doubt many folks are. I also agree about the care that is taken with high profile prisoners.

Some of the "concerns" that have recently popped up on this thread sound more from the movies based rather than what happens in real life. Confinement isn't all Rikers Island or Leavenworth.
I used to do business at a place that had minimum security prisoners working there. They went about their day doing their chores. It really wasn't a big deal.

 

[DisneyLover1217]

As much as the donating buildings have helped the donators' kids get into college, let's face it, it's necessary. I'm wondering if there will be a negative backlash towards donating buildings, that people will stop doing that. Like someone pointing out, yes, donating a building has gotten kids into some of these colleges that wouldn't have made it in otherwise, but having these buildings opens up more slots for countless deserving kids. What will happen now if the rich now feel donating to colleges will be looked down upon and just won't do it. What LL and FH did just benefited their kid, but donating buildings do benefit many kids. Would hate to see that stop all because of this scandal.

 

[MrsPete]

I do agree that the public seemingly always wants a pound of flesh before an individual has their day in court. Are they more than likely guilty? Yes, but I hold judgement until there's a legitimate judgement. I also don't believe that Lori Laughlin getting 40 years or Felicity Huffman picking up roadkill on the side of the road will have any impact on the public perception that wealth can buy out of trouble nor do I see it as a deterrent for other celebrities to do the same exact thing.

Agree, and I'll repeat what I said much earlier in this thread (or maybe it was a similar thread?): The punishment should fit the crime. These people have harmed the general public by stealing college seats that could've gone to other students. An appropriate punishment would be for them to do something to help the general public ... perhaps build (out of pocket - not tax deductible) and personally work at (they, their children, and the other people who were involved in perpetuating this fraud) a tutoring center for kids at risk. Stock the tutoring center with books and computers, provide people to help kids learning to read, provide help with math homework.