It is difficult to defend the wealthy, when they are loathed by the masses.
However: as Christians, we are to give true, impartial justice to all. Yes, even to the rihcman who we may not like.
Which is why I agree with William L. Anderson and his article The Federal “Crimes” of the College Admission Scandal Aren’t Real Crimes
(A moment of silence for Arthur Anderson, a productive business which was destroyed as a useful public scapegoat in a similar process.)
If the law is twisted to oppress the wrong sort of rich people, then you can be sure that it will be twisted to oppress the wrong sort of religious people, too.
The entire matter should not be a federal matter at all: just a civil court issue.
My key takeaway from this miscarriage of justice comes at the end of the article, though:
The notion that throwing Loughlin and Giannulli in prison for the rest of their lives will somehow overthrow the alleged oligarchy that is ruining our lives is a stretch, to put it mildly. But that seems to be the sentiment among many Americans. Like so many others who are ignorant of the vast array of weapons that federal prosecutors can wield against them, many of the parents who are fighting the charges have no idea what they are up against.
As Jackson and I noted, federal criminal law does not have to meet the mens rea standard which for centuries has been the bedrock of American-Anglo criminal law. We write:
many federal laws impose criminal sanctions for so-called public welfare offenses. These laws often do not require a “guilty mind,” or mens rea, which historically has been an essential element in common law crimes. Indeed, public welfare “crimes,” such as violations of environmental regulations or insider trading laws, need not involve even unintentional harm to third parties. The overreaching of federal criminal law is especially troubling because institutional and procedural features of the federal system invite prosecutorial abuses, make convictions easier to obtain than in state systems, impose harsh mandatory sentences even for nonviolent acts, and result in disparate treatment of similarly situated defendants.
The second disadvantage is that the American news media, which claims to be a “watchdog” protecting our rights, is rooting for the feds. When Martha Stewart was convicted, federal prosecutors already had broken the law by illegally leaking grand jury testimony to the press, a felony punishable by five years in prison. One of the jurors lied in order to get on the jury, and it was clear that his sole purpose was to vote guilty.
In other words, the government cheated and denied Stewart the fundamental right to a fair trial, but all that most journalists could do was to be cheerleaders for federal prosecutors and to comment upon Stewart’s wardrobe whenever she made a court appearance. Although what Loughlin and Giannulli allegedly did was wrong by any social and moral standards, they hardly deserve to be thrown in cages for the rest of their lives. I realize that mine is an unpopular opinion these days, just as my questioning the criminal charges against Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling brought out the long knives. That being said, I don’t apologize for my pleas to see sanity return to how the authorities carry out the law.
Tyrannies need to be broken up.
There must be only ONE LAW, for all.
As God commands justice, we must uphold justice – for all – according to God’s standard, as written by Moses and modified by Jesus, God Himself.
This is true, even if some shady rich people benefit.
(Or pagans… or Muslims… or Darwinians… or foreigners… or whoever.)