The cross party policy that everyone is ignoring

[populistdriven]

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2019, 06:49 PM - Edit history (3)

Support harsh mandatory minimum sentences for white-collar criminals.

Given the current political climate I really think strongly supporting this would get cross-party votes.

If a guy who steals $100 in quarters is getting the same sentence that Paul Manafort did for tax evasion involving millions of dollars don't you think that requiring most white collar criminals whose crimes involved over a certain amount should have a mandatory minimum sentence?

And of course the current political climate won't last. So this is our best chance to get it passed? And once passed, in the future is it likely to be a platform for both the right and the left to agree to eliminate all mandatory minimum sentences?

Currently there is a relatively narrow set of crimes that meet minimum sentencing criteria compared to blue collar crimes.

Imagine trying to argue against that in the current political climate during a debate. Good luck. I think this would also help take the edge off of Joe Biden's past remarks regarding harsh minimum sentences for blue collar criminals, if he supported it.

[rampartc]

1. these crimes, particularly if committed by elected officials

should set the standard for "rule of law."

[populistdriven]

2. It would get significant support from blue collar felons

Especially the new 1.5 million previously disenfranchised voters in Florida.

[rampartc]

3. absolutely

"conservatives" on another board are whining about the injustice of this sentence to such a "non violent criminal."

this guy stole millions as certainly as if he had shoplifted or picked pockets for much smaller stakes. how much sympathy does a pick picket get from these "law and order" freaks?

[flor-de-jasmim]

4. The use of FINES also deserves a look:

Three days ago the following news came out:

The Federal Election Commission is fining a super PAC that supported former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush for accepting over $1.3 million in illegal donations from Chinese nationals.

The Right to Rise super political action committee was fined $390,000 for soliciting the foreign contributions during the 2016 campaign. American Pacific International Capital, a Chinese-owned company, was fined $550,000 for giving the donation.

Unless there was another fine, this means the PAC still came out more than $350,000 ahead in the game.

To me, an admitted non-lawyer, a fine should be more than the amount taken in, which is a specific amount of payment. Anything less than that amount still results in a profit for those breaking the law. Maybe we need to apply a system of damages + compensation. In this case, $1.3 million in damages and something more for the "pain and suffering" we all suffered.

Manafort embezzled something like $66 million. He has been fined (so far) only peanuts on the dollar. Damages should be $66 million, and the amount for pain and suffering due to "shenanigans" (in light of a stronger word) from Trump et al., incalculable to the country, but at a minimum should call for stripping these families of all the money gained illegally. That would be my starting point.

[populistdriven]

5. Exactly! Make the time and the fine punative based on the ill-gotten gains!

I like this! It a big departure from typical Washington politics.