What are they thinking?

[Cardboard]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/goldman-gupta-letters-idUSL1E8LCLEW20121013?type=companyNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=companyNews&rpc=43

 

So if you make donations or help some people, then you should see lighter sentences for breaking the law and hurting other people? Just trying to take the logic further, so a 3rd degree murder by an unknown and one committed by a known philantropist should be treated differently?

 

Cardboard

[PlanMaestro]

So if you make donations or help some people, then you should see lighter sentences for breaking the law and hurting other people? Just trying to take the logic further, so a 3rd degree murder by an unknown and one committed by a known philantropist should be treated differently?

 

Cardboard

 

Lance Armstrong thread?

[Guest]

Ohhh, time to start a "Free Bernie" Facebook page! :)

[Palantir]

I agree with them. I think the sentences for insider trading were far too harsh especially for Raj. 10 years is just too much for a pretty benign crime. I think even 2 yr sentences would have been enough punishment. I'm serious FYI.

[Guest]

Too harsh? A law is punishable by the act and not your other deeds in life. If his wealth that he gave away was attained by doing unethical things, why should he be rewarded for that?

[pabraifan]

Too harsh? A law is punishable by the act and not your other deeds in life. If his wealth that he gave away was attained by doing unethical things, why should he be rewarded for that?

 

Totally agree.

If the judge shows leniency for people committing insider trading law, where will the line be drawn ? Fraudsters as Ken Lay will also ask for leniency too with the same reasons. It's a slippery slope. Without harse sentencing, people will do whatever they want in the stock market and the small investors will be taken advantaged of. A good example is Japan where people don't respect insider trading law.

[Palantir]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

I agree with them. I think the sentences for insider trading were far too harsh especially for Raj. 10 years is just too much for a pretty benign crime. I think even 2 yr sentences would have been enough punishment. I'm serious FYI.

 

raj was a very smart guy. he knew what the penalties were in advance of his crime. he knew they were harsh. got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[twacowfca]

Realize that the US theory of justice goes far beyond the idea of punishment toward the object of true repentance and ultimately restoration as a reformed member of society.  From what I've read, Rajat Gupta, appears to have led an honest life until recently, when he fell under the power of greed and envy.  Thus, his crimes may have been a sad anomaly. 

 

Therefore, his background and good deeds should be weighed appropriately by the judge in deciding the term of his incarceration because complete restoration may be likely as he does not appear to be an habitual criminal, unlike individuals such as Madoff.

[tyska]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

 

I can't believe that one would consider this a benign crime although it is considered that way when the politicians do it. I guess it's okay how the securities commission looks the other way on the rest of the things going on with wall street. It's all benign anyway.

[leftcoast]

Realize that the US theory of justice goes far beyond the idea of punishment toward the object of true repentance and ultimately restoration as a reformed member of society.  From what I've read, Rajat Gupta, appears to have led an honest life until recently, when he fell under the power of greed and envy.  Thus, his crimes may have been a sad anomaly. 

 

Therefore, his background and good deeds should be weighed appropriately by the judge in deciding the term of his incarceration because complete restoration may be likely as he does not appear to be an habitual criminal, unlike individuals such as Madoff.

 

If a person's previous criminal record (past convictions) can be used to help determine their sentence, I don't see why other aspects of the personal history and circumstances can't be factored in too. Ultimately, it's about figuring out whether they are likely to re-offend, and whether society is better off with or without them.

 

Ajit Jain said it pretty eloquently:

"I suspect that there are more meaningfully redemptive possibilities for Rajat than a substantial period of incarceration."

 

All that needs to be weighed against the benefit of making an "example" of Gupta to deter future offenders.

[LC]

Realize that the US theory of justice goes far beyond the idea of punishment toward the object of true repentance and ultimately restoration as a reformed member of society.

I have to disagree completely. The idea of law and justice has evolved to the point where miscellaneous aspects of a person's life are not considered, and for good reason. What a judge/jury considers are the facts surrounding the crime committed. That is why the judge limited what the jury was eligible to hear regarding Gupta's charitable work.

From what I've read, Rajat Gupta, appears to have led an honest life until recently, when he fell under the power of greed and envy.  Thus, his crimes may have been a sad anomaly. 

What does any of this have to do with his criminal actions? If he had driven while drunk and killed someone, does this logic still hold? Of course not.

Therefore, his background and good deeds should be weighed appropriately by the judge in deciding the term of his incarceration because complete restoration may be likely as he does not appear to be an habitual criminal, unlike individuals such as Madoff.

Again, would the same logic hold if he had drunkenly ran someone over? What should be considered is his behavior while serving his sentence. If he is deemed eligible for an early release, good for him.

 

Unfortunately life doesn't work this way and money and political associations can "buy" one's innocence, which will most likely be the case. It's more likely that the lower man on the totel pole (Raj - i.e. the "fall guy") will be made an example of and Gupta will serve a token sentence.

[Palantir]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

 

I can't believe that one would consider this a benign crime although it is considered that way when the politicians do it. I guess it's okay how the securities commission looks the other way on the rest of the things going on with wall street. It's all benign anyway.

 

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

[Liberty]

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

 

Well, when you make rules that everybody's supposed to play by and someone doesn't, it harms all the others who were supposed to be playing the game with the same information as everybody else but actually weren't. So everybody who could have benefited from knowing that Buffett was about to invest but didn't was harmed (most directly those on the other side of the trades, but also everybody else who with that information would have traded differently). That's a lot of people. But that's just the first degree; once you have enough of that stuff, it erodes confidence in the whole game and makes the whole system stop working, so that's a lot more damage, even if more indirect and diffuse.

[LC]

 

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

 

Everyone on the other side of his trades? Would you have taken the other side of a trade with someone who had inside information? Of course not.

 

What about large pension fund managers who are fiduciaries to people's financial well-being in their non-working years? If they depend on pension payments and the fund cannot meet them, then either the company has to increase pension contributions which will hurt their shareholders, or cut pension benefits which hurts retirees. All so Raj and Gupta can make another buck. Now what if that retiree cannot make rent or bill payments because of their lowered benefits.

[pabraifan]

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

 

Well, when you make rules that everybody's supposed to play by and someone doesn't, it harms all the others who were supposed to be playing the game with the same information as everybody else but actually weren't. So everybody who could have benefited from knowing that Buffett was about to invest but didn't was harmed (most directly those on the other side of the trades, but also everybody else who with that information would have traded differently). That's a lot of people. But that's just the first degree; once you have enough of that stuff, it erodes confidence in the whole game and makes the whole system stop working, so that's a lot more damage, even if more indirect and diffuse.

 

I agree with Liberty.

If a precedence is set, then the system will stop working and give people incentive to rub elbows with politicians, not play by the rule and do some charity to cover their butt if caught.

[tyska]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

 

I can't believe that one would consider this a benign crime although it is considered that way when the politicians do it. I guess it's okay how the securities commission looks the other way on the rest of the things going on with wall street. It's all benign anyway.

 

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

 

Liberty explained what I was thinking very well. It's about confidence that the rules are being followed and the game isn't rigged. While I'll agree what he was doing is pretty small in terms of what is eroding confidence in the whole system now. None the less, not going after the big things doesn't excuse the small things, hopefully a starting point.

[Guest deepValue]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

 

I can't believe that one would consider this a benign crime although it is considered that way when the politicians do it. I guess it's okay how the securities commission looks the other way on the rest of the things going on with wall street. It's all benign anyway.

 

Nobody gets hurt when a only a small proportion of people trade on inside information. It only becomes a problem when a large percentage of traders have inside information, thus making it foolish for people without inside information to buy or sell a stock. Anything more than 1-2 years in prison (after adjusting for good behavior) seems pretty harsh for a victimless crime.

[LC]

Victimless crime? Would you take the opposite side of one of Raj's insider trades?

[woltac]

I'm not saying that he should be shown leniency because of his good work. Rather, I think insider trading shouldn't be punished as severely as it is. A benign crime like that shouldn't put Raj in jail for 10 years.

 

I can't believe that one would consider this a benign crime although it is considered that way when the politicians do it. I guess it's okay how the securities commission looks the other way on the rest of the things going on with wall street. It's all benign anyway.

 

If this is so harmful, want to tell me who was exactly harmed by Rajaratnam trading on info that Goldman was about to get an investment from Buffett? Then once you've identified the victimized party, explain to me how that deserves ten years in prison.

 

$75.00 fine, payable by mail.  ;)

[Guest deepValue]

Victimless crime? Would you take the opposite side of one of Raj's insider trades?

 

I don't understand... You don't know who is on the other side of the transaction... People who sell to Raj are going to sell regardless of who is on the other side of the trade.

[SharperDingaan]

In the Arabian Gulf if you get caught stealing you lose a hand.

In most gangs if you steal from the gang you lose your life.

 

There is only room for one guy stealing, he can only steal as long as his rivals allow him to, and then he has to prevent those rivals from stealing what he has stolen. Yes, there is a cost to society, but the 'winner takes all' approach inherently limits the amount. The market solution applied to thievery.

 

If you are not a very good thief you get caught. If you are good thief you & don't get to keep that much, & not for that long.

[Liberty]

Victimless crime? Would you take the opposite side of one of Raj's insider trades?

 

I don't understand... You don't know who is on the other side of the transaction... People who sell to Raj are going to sell regardless of who is on the other side of the trade.

 

But both sides are supposed to have access to the same public information. In this case, they didn't. One side got screwed because they played by the rules.

 

This is like buying a house from someone who had a chance to fully inspect it, but you can't, and you think they couldn't either.

[Palantir]

You cannot be serious. If you were on the losing side of his trade, even if Raj didn't know the information you still would have made the trade anyways. Given that the trade would have been made anyway, being on the losing side of Raj's trade makes him deserve 10 years in prison?

 

 

Here is an example of a guy who got 10 years in prison:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/professional-clown-gets-10-years-in-prison-for-raping-girl.html

 

 

Is it illegal? Sure...but it is not a significant harm at all. I don't see why "being on the losing side of the trade" should be punished the same as a fricking child rapist.

 

 

[Liberty]

You cannot be serious. If you were on the losing side of his trade, even if Raj didn't know the information you still would have made the trade anyways. Given that the trade would have been made anyway, being on the losing side of Raj's trade makes him deserve 10 years in prison?

 

 

Here is an example of a guy who got 10 years in prison:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/professional-clown-gets-10-years-in-prison-for-raping-girl.html

 

 

Is it illegal? Sure...but it is not a significant harm at all. I don't see why "being on the losing side of the trade" should be punished the same as a fricking child rapist.

 

Are you serious? You really don't see what's wrong with going to the casino and it being rigged or not against you even if you don't know and would have played there anyway?