well as always, on this specific topic, we agree to disagree.
As official sounding as the sentence "sentenced to a period in accordance with federal guidelines" is, it simply has no validity if the judges are not consistent on their rulings.
I know it sounds kind of childish to say "why did this guy get less time than this other guys, wahhhh", but it is a reality, and it these kind of discrepancies that should never go overlooked or uncontested.
The other thing that bothers me about this case is the misinterpretation by everyone from jurors, to the judge, to even the defendant, on what reality is and what happened. And I am making no claim to understand it all myself. But For just one example, there is no way, that without at least several weeks of hard-core specific training, can you impose overall knowledge of short sales or even the way that long sales work, into the heads of the average joe, in order for them to make a valid decision.
Murders, rapes, and other human crimes are pretty clear and the average joe is totally qualified, in most cases, to make an opinion.
Corporate crime is harder to understand, but stock market crime is a totally different animal.
I have asked many people, who have no knowledge of the stock market, their opinion about what a sentence should be for "a guy who worked together with an ex-FBI agent who accessed secret computers to help beef their knowledge base against scammy companies, and to make money from it in the stock market", and none of these think it should be any kind of significant sentence at all. “maybe 6 months”? Especially a guy who has young children and actualy know how to be a Dad (fabric of society, dominoe effect, etc, etc) . Ironically, some of the people I spoke to commented “hell it sounds like this dynamic duo would bring to light scams faster than the normal system would” (as wrong as that is obviously) . The human factor is huge here. Too bad this particular court was so cut and dry.
The fact that you and some others think the sentence fits the crime, is of course your prerogative also, but it disturbingly reveals some emotional issues that I do not think are right. Agreeing with a long sentence for being called nasty names and having the "-----> CAPS!" pointed at you is not morally justified, it's all pure emotion. Emotion being a skill that some handle well and others' don’t. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion). When you and Elgindy had your falling out and you left his site as a leader in the “long” chat room, I’m sure it wasn’t pretty. Being called mean nicknames on SI by Elgindy probably didn’t increase your love for him either.
I would say that if you polled all the active members of SI (people who indeed supposedly understand the stock markets) , and if they all answered, you will discover that you are indeed out of the mainstream. After all it's just a handful of people on SI that keep piping back with their "doom for Anthony" comments.
No one can blame former members for choosing to keep quiet - they are paranoid of the justice system after seeing this odd case go through it, and who can blame them after all the "talk" about further indictments. But maybe it's just as well , since those will be biased views also.
In regards to your comment:
"I think Anthony did many things that were wrong, and knew they were wrong. I think what happened to him was right"
This could be true, but what happens to him from today forward, may not be so right. |
