College entrance cheating scandal

[Floridaman999]

I'm not sure we're really understanding what you're getting at. Speaking for myself, I'm not quite clear, which is why I was discussing it with you to understand your thoughts.

I'm gonna just forget it. It's of no importance to me at this point because I'm either terrible at explaining what I mean or whatever I say is gonna get twisted beyond what I mean. I know when to bow out here on the Dis and now is my time.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm gonna just forget it. It's of no importance to me at this point because I'm either terrible at explaining what I mean or whatever I say is gonna get twisted beyond what I mean. I know when to bow out here on the Dis and now is my time.

I hope you won't really leave. I was genuinely interested in what you had to say.

 

[Floridaman999]

I hope you won't really leave. I was genuinely interested in what you had to say.

My comment was not specifically about this case. It was about the desire for some people to punish, punish, punish. Our criminal justice system is based on punishment first and foremost in my opinion. Our community based corrections and programs don't seem effective and I don't know whether that's based on lack of funding, lack of effectiveness, or a mixture of many things. I am aware of many European systems based more on rehabilitation that have wonderful recidivism rates, at least much better than we have here. Norway would be a good example of that. We have a much larger population and a much wider socioeconomic range than Norway so there would be real hurdles for a similar program to work as effectively here. The problem, to me, is that there is no desire from our communities or population as a whole to go with a more rehabilitative structure. We certainly need to punish as well. I am not wishing to eliminate that aspect, but I would like to see more reliance, or an attempt to make rehabilitative programs more effective, useful, and successful for our people. If we continue to desire punishment beyond any other aspect then we will never get there. That is what I was trying to say. Some of the comments in this thread is an example of what I meant. It was not a suggestion that they shouldn't be punished, or that they should only be fined. I never said those words at all. I do believe there needs to be a punishment in this case beyond financial. My thoughts were much more wide spread and really not about this case, but more about the implications of what I see in the words expressed.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

My comment was not specifically about this case. It was about the desire for some people to punish, punish, punish. Our criminal justice system is based on punishment first and foremost in my opinion. Our community based corrections and programs don't seem effective and I don't know whether that's based on lack of funding, lack of effectiveness, or a mixture of many things.

I've noticed this too and I find it frustrating. Isn't it the job of "corrections" to correct behavior? As opposed to just locking somebody away to get them out of your hair for awhile. Some people are a danger to society and probably can't be rehabilitated -- rapists, murderers, etc. But large sentences for drug possession? What does that do besides ruining the life of the offender? What is the point of a 40 year prison sentence for a college cheating scandal? To scare people straight? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

 

[Floridaman999]

I've noticed this too and I find it frustrating. Isn't it the job of "corrections" to correct behavior? As opposed to just locking somebody away to get them out of your hair for awhile. Some people are a danger to society and probably can't be rehabilitated -- rapists, murderers, etc. But large sentences for drug possession? What does that do besides ruining the life of the offender? What is the point of a 40 year prison sentence for a college cheating scandal? To scare people straight? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

I just wish we could change our mindset to a more rehabilitative program for some crimes. I agree with you that we could certainly use some of those resources more effectively.

 

[NYDisGuy]

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.

 

[cabanafrau]

My comment was not specifically about this case. It was about the desire for some people to punish, punish, punish. Our criminal justice system is based on punishment first and foremost in my opinion. Our community based corrections and programs don't seem effective and I don't know whether that's based on lack of funding, lack of effectiveness, or a mixture of many things. I am aware of many European systems based more on rehabilitation that have wonderful recidivism rates, at least much better than we have here. Norway would be a good example of that. We have a much larger population and a much wider socioeconomic range than Norway so there would be real hurdles for a similar program to work as effectively here. The problem, to me, is that there is no desire from our communities or population as a whole to go with a more rehabilitative structure. We certainly need to punish as well. I am not wishing to eliminate that aspect, but I would like to see more reliance, or an attempt to make rehabilitative programs more effective, useful, and successful for our people. If we continue to desire punishment beyond any other aspect then we will never get there. That is what I was trying to say. Some of the comments in this thread is an example of what I meant. It was not a suggestion that they shouldn't be punished, or that they should only be fined. I never said those words at all. I do believe there needs to be a punishment in this case beyond financial. My thoughts were much more wide spread and really not about this case, but more about the implications of what I see in the words expressed.

The idea of punishment, sentencing, rehabilitation are all things I work with on a regular basis on a local level, not federal. I think you might be surprised to actually see in action what's truly going on every day in regards to -- how do we address this offender, this crime -- and is there a way to try and engineer a course correct? My experience is that the majority of people working on this from the prosecution end are actually looking at things first with the idea of, for lack of a better term, how do we get this person to straighten up and fly right?

 

[Floridaman999]

The idea of punishment, sentencing, rehabilitation are all things I work with on a regular basis on a local level, not federal. I think you might be surprised to actually see in action what's truly going on every day in regards to -- how do we address this offender, this crime -- and is there a way to try and engineer a course correct? My experience is that the majority of people working on this from the prosecution end are actually looking at things first with the idea of, for lack of a better term, how do we get this person to straighten up and fly right?

My experience has been that the caseload is so extreme in our criminal court system that there isn't time to apply that kind of reasoning to every case. I don't know the exact percentage, but I do know that a large majority of cases are settled with plea bargains. I understand that plea bargains are necessary and useful in many cases, I just don't believe they should be used as much as they are. I don't think the time is spent in "finding out how to make this person fly right" when there are dozens and dozens of cases to work through in a day. My experience with our local court system was for a very specialized population. I saw what they were able to do with proper time, resources, and a true desire to rehabilitate. I didn't get the same impression from our general criminal court system at all. Your local program might be different, but my opinion is based on what I've experienced myself.

 

[cabanafrau]

My experience has been that the caseload is so extreme in our criminal court system that there isn't time to apply that kind of reasoning to every case. I don't know the exact percentage, but I do know that a large majority of cases are settled with plea bargains. I understand that plea bargains are necessary and useful in many cases, I just don't believe they should be used as much as they are. I don't think the time is spent in "finding out how to make this person fly right" when there are dozens and dozens of cases to work through in a day. My experience with our local court system was for a very specialized population. I saw what they were able to do with proper time, resources, and a true desire to rehabilitate. I didn't get the same impression from our general criminal court system at all. Your local program might be different, but my opinion is based on what I've experienced myself.

I think maybe you're equating settling a case via plea bargain with railroading a defendant. I know that's frequently a trope in TV and the movies, but quite often it's actually simply the product of consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the specifics of the defendant involved and a negotiated agreement about an outcome that achieves the best result possible for everyone. Plea bargains are largely about not expending unnecessary resources on a trial when the parties involved can negotiate something that satisfies everyone. Generally they result in probation, shorter sentences and even sometimes sentences held in abeyance for X period of time so that a judge may decide what to do at that later date based upon a defendant's showing of good faith efforts, or lack thereof. Sometimes a defendant takes a plea deal not for a shorter sentence, but as a means of avoiding acceptance of civil liability.

Eliminating plea bargains from the process simply to reduce the number of plea bargains would require a lot more resources be allocated to handle that many more trials -- or completely blow up any idea about the right to speedy trial. If we're devoting that much resources to trials simply to say a trial was held, it's that much less resources to go around to providing programs that actually are attempting to address recidivism. Back when the lion's share of my work involved cases of abuse and neglect where children were made wards of the court while parents were working their way through requirements and treatment to demonstrate they were ready and able to care for their children again it was common for an incarcerated parent to have access to behavioral modification therapies necessary far more often than it was for parents not in the corrections system.

IMO the statistic of cases settled by plea bargains doesn't mean much.

 

[Floridaman999]

I think maybe you're equating settling a case via plea bargain with railroading a defendant. I know that's frequently a trope in TV and the movies, but quite often it's actually simply the product of consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the specifics of the defendant involved and a negotiated agreement about an outcome that achieves the best result possible for everyone. Plea bargains are largely about not expending unnecessary resources on a trial when the parties involved can negotiate something that satisfies everyone. Generally they result in probation, shorter sentences and even sometimes sentences held in abeyance for X period of time so that a judge may decide what to do at that later date based upon a defendant's showing of good faith efforts, or lack thereof. Sometimes a defendant takes a plea deal not for a shorter sentence, but as a means of avoiding acceptance of civil liability.

Eliminating plea bargains from the process simply to reduce the number of plea bargains would require a lot more resources be allocated to handle that many more trials -- or completely blow up any idea about the right to speedy trial. If we're devoting that much resources to trials simply to say a trial was held, it's that much less resources to go around to providing programs that actually are attempting to address recidivism. Back when the lion's share of my work involved cases of abuse and neglect where children were made wards of the court while parents were working their way through requirements and treatment to demonstrate they were ready and able to care for their children again it was common for an incarcerated parent to have access to behavioral modification therapies necessary far more often than it was for parents not in the corrections system.

IMO the statistic of cases settled by plea bargains doesn't mean much.

I'm just speculating and giving my opinion based on my experiences with my local system. I realize things will be different depending on jurisdiction and even depending on the court officers at play. My thoughts are not to eliminate plea bargaining, because I do believe it would quickly bottleneck everything involved. I do wonder if we've grown to accustomed to using plea bargaining, but you seem to have much more experience in regards to that than I do. It was only an opinion based on what I've seen here. I sometimes wonder if it's a tool used to bargain with people who have less than stellar representation. Less than stellar in that the defense attorney has so many caseloads that they almost have to depend on their clients accepting pleas instead of going to trial. There surely are more variables at play for those that actually have to use the system we currently have. I'd just like to see some changes to the established goals on a whole.

Again, this is only based on my own experience with the system that I worked with for a few years. I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I'm not a legal professional in any way, shape or form. I was tasked with helping in a very specific court with very specific parties. I saw the difference between what happened in the specialized court versus what happened when/if they were moved to the regular/general criminal court. It honestly, to me, unbelievably different. My wish would be that support for a more rehabilitative system in regards to many non-violent crimes be at play. And, by support I mean by the general public as a whole, not necessarily those who work within the criminal justice system. Just a wish and a dream. Not really trying to prove right or wrong at all as there are many opinions and ideas. Heck, look at all the differences in the many Criminologists who created what we have now? I don't believe one is right and everything else is wrong. I just think I have a stronger positive opinion of some of the more recent theories where rehabilitation is involved. Punishment and retribution is fine for some cases. I'd just like to see it used less in some cases as well.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm just speculating and giving my opinion based on my experiences with my local system. I realize things will be different depending on jurisdiction and even depending on the court officers at play. My thoughts are not to eliminate plea bargaining, because I do believe it would quickly bottleneck everything involved. I do wonder if we've grown to accustomed to using plea bargaining, but you seem to have much more experience in regards to that than I do. It was only an opinion based on what I've seen here. I sometimes wonder if it's a tool used to bargain with people who have less than stellar representation. Less than stellar in that the defense attorney has so many caseloads that they almost have to depend on their clients accepting pleas instead of going to trial. There surely are more variables at play for those that actually have to use the system we currently have. I'd just like to see some changes to the established goals on a whole.

Again, this is only based on my own experience with the system that I worked with for a few years. I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I'm not a legal professional in any way, shape or form. I was tasked with helping in a very specific court with very specific parties. I saw the difference between what happened in the specialized court versus what happened when/if they were moved to the regular/general criminal court. It honestly, to me, unbelievably different. My wish would be that support for a more rehabilitative system in regards to many non-violent crimes be at play. And, by support I mean by the general public as a whole, not necessarily those who work within the criminal justice system. Just a wish and a dream. Not really trying to prove right or wrong at all as there are many opinions and ideas. Heck, look at all the differences in the many Criminologists who created what we have now? I don't believe one is right and everything else is wrong. I just think I have a stronger positive opinion of some of the more recent theories where rehabilitation is involved. Punishment and retribution is fine for some cases. I'd just like to see it used less in some cases as well.

I'm guessing you might be referring to something like a Veteran's Court -- which I absolutely agree is a much needed and truly valuable asset. They've been used here with great success. Drug courts are another specialized system that can produce some great results -- believe me, I think everyone in the criminal justice system wishes that a method to turn all of those cases into winners could be discovered. So many of the defendants in drug court absolutely want to climb out of the endless cycle of addiction.

I understand that court appointed defense attorneys are another favorite stereotype of TV and movies. Funny thing is, they're no more overburdened than their adversaries on the prosecution side. Here we have different lists of potential court appointed attorneys who can be appointed to some cases. An attorney must have a specific level of experience before they can be appointed to life felony cases here. No defendants here on any felony charges are assigned counsel who've never tried cases before, everybody gets an attorney with experience. Defense attorneys are not compelled to settle X number of cases because they know they have to go to trial on X number of cases already. Scheduling of matters to accommodate attorneys needing to be in trial or prepare for other major cases is accommodated all the time.

 

[Floridaman999]

I'm guessing you might be referring to something like a Veteran's Court -- which I absolutely agree is a much needed and truly valuable asset. They've been used here with great success. Drug courts are another specialized system that can produce some great results -- believe me, I think everyone in the criminal justice system wishes that a method to turn all of those cases into winners could be discovered. So many of the defendants in drug court absolutely want to climb out of the endless cycle of addiction.

I understand that court appointed defense attorneys are another favorite stereotype of TV and movies. Funny thing is, they're no more overburdened than their adversaries on the prosecution side. Here we have different lists of potential court appointed attorneys who can be appointed to some cases. An attorney must have a specific level of experience before they can be appointed to life felony cases here. No defendants here on any felony charges are assigned counsel who've never tried cases before, everybody gets an attorney with experience. Defense attorneys are not compelled to settle X number of cases because they know they have to go to trial on X number of cases already. Scheduling of matters to accommodate attorneys needing to be in trial or prepare for other major cases is accommodated all the time.

It's actually a mental health court that my experience is based on. It was definitely a different animal altogether from what the "regular" court seemed to be. I assisted in that setting in a non-legal sense and more in a treatment sense, so my thoughts, feelings and impressions might be a bit jaded. Who knows?

I appreciate the discussion with you. You've given me some thoughts and opinions from the "other side" that I hadn't really considered or spent much time looking at like I have the other, so I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I'm spending way too much time online these days because I'm either in treatment or recovery for a chronic condition I'm dealing with at this time so It's been nice having something interesting to discuss. Again, I appreciate the time you've spent discussing this with me, and I have a feeling we probably agree on much more than not.

 

[cabanafrau]

It's actually a mental health court that my experience is based on. It was definitely a different animal altogether from what the "regular" court seemed to be. I assisted in that setting in a non-legal sense and more in a treatment sense, so my thoughts, feelings and impressions might be a bit jaded. Who knows?

I appreciate the discussion with you. You've given me some thoughts and opinions from the "other side" that I hadn't really considered or spent much time looking at like I have the other, so I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I'm spending way too much time online these days because I'm either in treatment or recovery for a chronic condition I'm dealing with at this time so It's been nice having something interesting to discuss. Again, I appreciate the time you've spent discussing this with me, and I have a feeling we probably agree on much more than not.

Mental health court is absolutely a very different breed. I don't get involved in a lot of those cases because by and large the ones here that are assigned those dockets are handled by very specific professionals. I know that a lot of times I hear chatter about how harsh, cold blooded, unfeeling that court is. I get why it looks that way. Frequently family members who agree with the professional recommendations, agree their loved one needs treatment and agree they need to be hospitalized come out of there angry because they feel somehow the whole process doesn't care about their loved one.

The actuality is the very nature of most of the cases lends itself to dragging the process into chaos that leads nowhere if things aren't conducted in a very compact and controlled way. The cold people that seem like they may as well be stamping meaningless paperwork rather than trying to get help for someone in crisis -- they have to look at the situation as objectively as they can and try to preserve as much liberty and freedoms for the patient, while making sure they're paying attention to the doctors giving very valid recommendations about how to best try to return the patient to stability and good health. Many of the patients can speak with great intelligence and seemingly very convincingly about what they believe the circumstances to be. Unfortunately most of their theories and claims won't hold water when faced with actual facts. Not that it will stop their insistence or arguments unless the court calls a halt.

 

[kaytieeldr]

My comment was not specifically about this case. It was about the desire for some people to punish, punish, punish. Our criminal justice system is based on punishment first and foremost in my opinion. Our community based corrections and programs don't seem effective and I don't know whether that's based on lack of funding, lack of effectiveness, or a mixture of many things. I am aware of many European systems based more on rehabilitation that have wonderful recidivism rates, at least much better than we have here. Norway would be a good example of that.

The parents who didn't accept the plea deal are being charged with felony conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, along with (now) conspiracy to commit fraud and another of money laundering conspiracy. What community based corrections and services would you deem appropriate punishment?

 

[Floridaman999]

The parents who didn't accept the plea deal are being charged with felony conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, along with (now) conspiracy to commit fraud and another of money laundering conspiracy. What community based corrections and services would you deem appropriate punishment?

I've said, again and again and again, my feelings are not based on this case. They were based on what I saw in response to this case. Please stop trying to make this something it's not. Re-read what I wrote. I've never said they shouldn't be given any type or sort of sentence. That is nowhere near what I have been talking about.

 

[Floridaman999]

Mental health court is absolutely a very different breed. I don't get involved in a lot of those cases because by and large the ones here that are assigned those dockets are handled by very specific professionals. I know that a lot of times I hear chatter about how harsh, cold blooded, unfeeling that court is. I get why it looks that way. Frequently family members who agree with the professional recommendations, agree their loved one needs treatment and agree they need to be hospitalized come out of there angry because they feel somehow the whole process doesn't care about their loved one.

The actuality is the very nature of most of the cases lends itself to dragging the process into chaos that leads nowhere if things aren't conducted in a very compact and controlled way. The cold people that seem like they may as well be stamping meaningless paperwork rather than trying to get help for someone in crisis -- they have to look at the situation as objectively as they can and try to preserve as much liberty and freedoms for the patient, while making sure they're paying attention to the doctors giving very valid recommendations about how to best try to return the patient to stability and good health. Many of the patients can speak with great intelligence and seemingly very convincingly about what they believe the circumstances to be. Unfortunately most of their theories and claims won't hold water when faced with actual facts. Not that it will stop their insistence or arguments unless the court calls a halt.

The mental health court I was involved with was not about forced hospitalizations or guardianship. It was a criminal court established for those with diagnosed mental illness and lack of treatment and or compliance was the primary issue. Their crimes were generally misdemeanors and non violent. They were the kind of crimes you'd expect from untreated and non-compliant individuals. The court was established in an effort to help individuals maintain their treatment and seemed to have very good long term results. Those that weren't compliant and/or didn't follow the program ended up in the regular criminal court and things were much, much different for them there.

 

[gwynne]

I've been wondering about how the writers would approach the casting change. I think @Imzadi was posting about the challenges of this work awhile ago. If the article below is accurate, they did write her out. (vs recasting)

"And that Loughlin-less scenario has come to pass. The remaining season 6 installments have been re-edited in such a manner that removes any appearances by Loughlin, a source close to the show tells EW.

Removing Loughlin from the majority of the season required some highly creative editing, as well as some minor reshoots. As a result, one fewer episode will be offered in season 6, which means viewers will receive six episodes instead of seven."

https://ew.com/tv/2019/04/10/when-calls-the-heart-season-6-resumes-without-lori-loughlin/

 

[cabanafrau]

I've noticed this too and I find it frustrating. Isn't it the job of "corrections" to correct behavior? As opposed to just locking somebody away to get them out of your hair for awhile. Some people are a danger to society and probably can't be rehabilitated -- rapists, murderers, etc. But large sentences for drug possession? What does that do besides ruining the life of the offender? What is the point of a 40 year prison sentence for a college cheating scandal? To scare people straight? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

Who thinks the people in the college scandal are truly facing the possibility of 40 year sentences? I definitely don't. I was talking with attorneys with experience in the federal system and they said they expect many of those hit with the second round of charges to wind up with about 18 months.

Do you know what kind of programs are offered by the correctional system where you live? If you're not satisfied, get involved and campaign for more. You should also be prepared to explain how anything you propose would be funded.

Something to remember about news reports regarding sentences -- quite often the reports are streamlined to fit headlines and soundbites. If a large sentence is being handed out for drug possession, simple possession isn't the end of the story. Reports often focus in on what makes good copy (not unlike the two actresses in the college cheating cases and omitting the others charged), glossing over habitual enhancements, manufacturing and delivery charges, etc. No point in getting all up in arms about something it's only assumed is happening.

 

[Imzadi]

Removing Loughlin from the majority of the season required some highly creative editing, as well as some minor reshoots. As a result, one fewer episode will be offered in season 6, which means viewers will receive six episodes instead of seven."

Wow, so they really juggled episodes around and some stuff that were going to be in say, episode 3, are now happening episode 2, etc. I had wondered how they were going to edit her and still make the show a full hour. That would have been a lot of re-shoots to fill in the time. Those writers & editors really must have worked overtime to make it all fit & work out. Kudos to them.

 

[cabanafrau]

The mental health court I was involved with was not about forced hospitalizations or guardianship. It was a criminal court established for those with diagnosed mental illness and lack of treatment and or compliance was the primary issue. There crimes were generally misdemeanors and non violent. They were the kind of crimes you'd expect from untreated and non-compliant individuals. The court was established in an effort to help individuals maintain their treatment and seemed to have very good long term results. Those that weren't compliant and/or didn't follow the program ended up in the regular criminal court and things were much, much different for them there.

I'm not sure if any cases in particular get diverted to mental health court here for that reason. That's an interesting concept, very similar I'm sure in many ways to the aims of drug court and veteran's court.