Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Nearly 50 Charged in College Admissions Bribery Scandal


Muda69

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

No, I do not.   Not that ip addresses can't be easily spoofed or routed through a proxy.

 

 

I don't.

Man, you've given WAAAAAYYYY too much thought over someone working a high school football chat to get an up-vote.  Then again, the only evidence of said action ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

He cares about someone who has artificially inflated vote totals. It's a Seinfeld episode-a show about nothing.

Site's only been back up for a little time, so it's pretty easy to figure out that it's all pretty much on the up-and-up ... well, mainly.

13 hours ago, Irishman said:

Just curious; you do not see the ip addresses in the upper right of posts?

Right next to this image, right?

image.png.e14d6a99db4a9b353b367509cca599d4.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

This looks like an advertisement by this person.  This person lays out their cost, why it's a valuable service, why their services will continue to be in demand, and what the results are.  I don't see anywhere where they claimed they are quitting doing what they are doing nor returning the investment capital from Shark Tank.  This is the dealer lamenting a drug problem in the city while letting the users know where to find them where the cops look the other way ... except that the service that they offer is completely legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

just sharing the article.....was amazed they could charge and receive $1000/hr.  Looks like only wealthy clients.  I guess at least these are parents paying for their kids to learn and take the tests on their own........

For $1,000 an hour, you think there would be a better guarantee.  The article mentioned that the tutor's clients increase scores by a couple hundred points.  For that kind of money, you think there'd be 1) a guarantee and 2) more points than that.  My daughter, who is not a standardized test taker, increased her SAT 100 points with the Kaplan online course.  I think she had a discount code that let her get it for under $100.

The other thing that makes me wonder about the privilege part was that ETS went after the student in Florida who ended up with a 300-point increase.  ETS said that type of increase "tipped them off."  When pressed, they later claimed that her answers looked similar to other students who were under suspicion.  It would seem to me that, if the tutor's average score increase is a couple of hundred, wouldn't we have seen many more of these types of stories like the one in Florida?  Or do we only see them based on the school the student hails from, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, foxbat said:

Man, you've given WAAAAAYYYY too much thought over someone working a high school football chat to get an up-vote.  Then again, the only evidence of said action ...

A lot of thought?  Not really,  IP spoofing and using proxies have been around since pretty much the invention of the Internet Protocol and the internet itself.

And neither technique was used to to increase my reputation score to what it currently is.  I thought that had been discussed previously.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, foxbat said:

Site's only been back up for a little time, so it's pretty easy to figure out that it's all pretty much on the up-and-up ... well, mainly.

Right next to this image, right?

image.png.e14d6a99db4a9b353b367509cca599d4.png

What exactly are you saying foxbat?  You and Gonzo are the ones who seem to be all butt hurt about the GID's reputation rankings.   

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The college admissions scam opens a new front in the affirmative action debate: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/17/us/college-cheating-scandal-affirmative-action-debate/index.html

Quote

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

No leg up or handouts in America.
 
Why take a spot away from a more deserving student?
 
Those phrases are part of the rhetorical toolkit opponents of affirmative action have long used to attack the policy. But defenders of using racial preferences in college admissions now have a new response to complaints that undeserving black and brown students are getting help:
 
What about the college cheating scandal?
 
The outrage over the scam laid out by federal prosecutors has opened a new battleground in the affirmative action war. Opponents of the policy say the allegations bolster their arguments that elite colleges can't be trusted to vet students impartially. Defenders of racial preferences say, "There's a lot more kids at elite colleges because their parents are rich than because they're brown or black."
 
Looming behind this debate is a big question that may take years to answer:
Could revelations from the cheating scandal actually save affirmative action, if and when the US Supreme Court takes up the issue again?
 
So far, there's little indication to think the scheme uncovered by the feds could sway the court's conservative majority -- which has been shaped by a legal movement long opposed to affirmative action.
 
Some affirmative action critics, when asked why preferential treatment for racial minorities is wrong but giving a leg up to wealthy students, children of donors and legacy admissions is OK, say both are dubious.
 
Whether an unqualified student gets into college from the "racial preference pool" or the "celebrities-and-cheaters pool," it's not right, says Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
 
"If racial preference is unjust, then it doesn't magically become just because people notice some other injustice that has different beneficiaries," Olson says. "Two things can be unjust at the same time, and two injustices do not add up to one justice."
...

Growing up my parents would tell myself and my siblings repeatedly "Life isn't fair.  Get used to it."     It was true then and it is true now, and no amount of hand wringing and government intervention will change that.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

What exactly are you saying foxbat?  You and Gonzo are the ones who seem to be all butt hurt about the GID's reputation rankings.   

Yeah ... THAT'S it. 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Thank you for the admission.  It is refreshing to see.

 

I SEE you missed the rolling eyes

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, not unless you believe the Muda69 account was created/owned by foxbat.

 

Ok, no, I don't believe that. I also don't believe anyone who receives a lot of upvotes in this Club has a "sockpuppet". But I could be wrong................

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admissions Scandal Reveals Folly of Affirmative Action: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/admissions-scandal-reveals-folly-affirmative-action

Quote

When the news broke that dozens of affluent families had paid admissions fixer William Singer to lie their kids’ way into elite colleges - inventing athletic achievements, hiring stand-ins to take tests, obtaining bogus disability diagnoses - some pundits greeted the revelations as somehow proving what might seem something unrelated: that advocates of racial preferences in admissions were right all along.

The scandal “makes all those people who went to court arguing that their Caucasianism had been discriminated against through affirmative action look completely ridiculous,” claimed Charles Pierce in Esquire. According to an ACLU attorney interviewed at the Huffington Post, “race-conscious admissions programs” are intended “to even the playing field at least slightly” against the sort of parents who used Singer’s services. “Shame on anyone who still thinks affirmative action is unnecessary,” wrote Monique Judge at The Root.

This is a really odd line of argument. After all, more than one form of unjustified advantage can be “real” at the same time.

If racial preference in college admissions is unjust, it doesn’t magically become just because people identify some other injustice that has different beneficiaries.

Many of those arguing that the admissions scandal somehow vindicates racial preferences seem unaware that Singer repeatedly falsified students’ ethnicities to get them into affirmative action categories.

No wonder he’d want to do that. A recent Princeton study found being in a favored racial or ethnic group gave a boost in admissions equivalent to 180-230 SAT points, while being an Asian-American, a disfavored category, was like having to shoulder a handicap of 50 points.

Those who want to defend this state of affairs should be frank and defend it, rather than pointing to some other unfairness in admissions and claiming things somehow equal out.

It’s also worth the effort to quantify the effects.

“Legacy” admissions of students with alumni parents or relatives are not implicated in the new scandal, but it’s worth pointing out that a recent study found legacy admittees have on average higher, not lower, test scores than other members of their incoming class.

No one doubts that some poorly qualified students make it in because they have relatives who donate massive sums, a group not plentiful in number. Another batch of low-performing students get in through athletic preference.

If you’re an applicant who doesn’t fit in *either* the celebrities-and-cheaters pool or the racial-preference pool, things definitely aren’t somehow canceling out. You’re competing with other families like yours for an artificially small number of remaining admission seats. And that’s after the athletes-and-very-major-donors pool has taken its slice.

The lessons of fairness, a quantity that can be amorphously defined at best, may not be the same for all institutions.

Just as private universities are free to follow religious principles that may not be mine or yours, so they should have more breadth to pursue other objectives that you or I might necessarily agree with. That might mean efforts to “balance” representation by taking group status into account, or favoring the offspring of donors or founding families. They’re private.

Public (state) universities are different. They have responsibilities, including responsibilities of equal treatment, toward all the people of their states.

Sometimes they might have leeway to favor applicants whose admission is almost sure to benefit other students - for example, the star athlete or celebrity’s kid whose visibility or popularity means the college will attract more applicants or job recruiters up the road.

But those are going to be uncommon exceptions.

The Constitution is generally silent about education matters, but it does include in its Fourteenth Amendment specific language forbidding “any State” from denying to any racial group the equal protection of its laws. Public universities should not discriminate by race, especially not on the excuse that someone managed to game the system on other grounds.

Two injustices do not add up to one justice.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Felicity Huffman and 12 wealthy parents plead guilty in college admissions scam: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/us/felicity-huffman-guilty-admissions/index.html

Quote

Thirteen wealthy parents, including actress Felicity Huffman, and one coach will plead guilty to using bribery and other forms of fraud as part of the college admissions scandal, federal prosecutors in Boston said on Monday.

Huffman, Gregory and Marcia Abbott, Jane Buckingham, Gordon Caplan, Robert Flaxman, Agustin Huneeus Jr., Marjorie Klapper, Peter Jan Sartorio, Stephen Semprevivo and Devin Sloane were all charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud and have agreed to plead guilty, prosecutors said.

Bruce Isackson and Davina Isackson will plead guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, and Bruce Isackson will also plead guilty to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the IRS for taking a tax deduction for the bribe.

Finally, Michael Center, the former men's tennis coach at the University of Texas, agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

Huffman, the "Desperate Housewives" star, pleaded guilty to paying $15,000 to a fake charity associated with Rick Singer to facilitate cheating for her daughter on the SATs, the complaint says.

"I am in full acceptance of my guilt, and with deep regret and shame over what I have done, I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions," she said in a statement.

"I am ashamed of the pain I have caused my daughter, my family, my friends, my colleagues and the educational community. I want to apologize to them and, especially, I want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices to support their children and do so honestly.

"My daughter knew absolutely nothing about my actions, and in my misguided and profoundly wrong way, I have betrayed her. This transgression toward her and the public I will carry for the rest of my life. My desire to help my daughter is no excuse to break the law or engage in dishonesty," she said in the statement.

Prosecutors will be asking for jail time for all defendants, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. Huffman, Lori Loughlin and other defendants are facing anywhere between six to 21 months in prison if convicted or if they plead guilty, the official added, though the exact sentence would depend on a number of factors.

Who here believes any of them will actually serve any time in prison?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Mike Rowe On College Admissions Scandals: The Real Scandal Is The Myth That A College Education Is Required: https://www.dailywire.com/news/46046/mike-rowe-college-admissions-scandals-real-scandal-hank-berrien

Quote

Speaking with Tucker Carlson of Fox News on Monday night, Mike Rowe offered his opinion on the college scandals in which parents paid huge sums of money to get their children accepted to prestigious universities, choosing not to focus on the cheating of the parents but the university system for convincing people that the only chance their children have for success is for them to secure a four-year degree from a university, no matter the cost.

Carlson asked Rowe about the scandals, prompting Rowe to reply:

I’m outraged; everybody’s outraged, but you step back and you look at it, I think it’s fair to say, what is most outrageous? What are we really angry about? Cheaters are bad; cheaters are bad because when people cheat, people who don’t cheat get taken advantage of and that’s just fundamentally not fair. We all get that; but rich cheaters seem to really upset us especially, and I think part of what’s crystallized the outrage around this story is that the people who most egregiously cheated had an awful lot of money. And for my money, as I step back to look at it, I was like, well, yeah, that is kind of disgusting, but where is the outrage for the cost of college in general? You don’t have to be rich or famous to believe that your kid is doomed to fail if they don’t get a four-year degree. There are millions of parents in the country right now, millions, who genuinely feel that if they don’t do everything they can to get their kid into a good school they will fail the kid.

Then Rowe turned to the idea that a university education was required for success:

So where’s the outrage for the pressure that we put on a seventeen-year-old to borrow $100,000? So much of that pressure comes from their mom and dad; it’s well-intended, but it’s kind of tragic. And where’s the outrage for the guidance counselors, who continually say the best path for the most people just happens to be the most expensive. And the politicians and the lobbyists who exacerbate the same myth and the employers who still insist on only interviewing people with a four-year degree. We set the table in a pretty self-evident way, and when we scratch our heads … you’re exactly right: the cost of tuition is increasing faster than inflation but also faster than health care, faster than real estate, faster than food, faster than energy. Never before in the history of Western Civilization has anything so potentially important become so egregiously expensive. So, college is expensive because we’ve freed up an unlimited pile of free money and told an entire generation they were doomed to fail if they didn’t borrow it, and that’s happened in every single tax bracket, not just the top one.

Carlson asked why people would not come forth and say the system is a scam. Rowe responded:

I think because we’re stuck in this perpetual binary box. It’s this or that. Right, it’s blue-collar or white color, good job or bad job. Higher education or higher alternative education. And when you only have two choices or when you think you only have two choices, you do one thing at the expense of the other. So for instance, I know we have talked about this before, but it just seems so clear now. When four-year degreed universities needed a p.r. campaign 40 years ago, they got one. But the p.r. came at the expense of all of other forms of education. So it wasn't just, “Hey, Tucker go get your liberal arts degree because it will give you a broad-based of appreciation for the humanities." It was, "If you don't go get that degree, you’re going to wind up over here turning a ranch or running a welding torch or doing some kind of vocational consolation prize." We promoted the one thing at the expense of all of the others. And that one thing just happened to be the most expensive thing.

Rowe concluded:

And so, look, I don't think the skills gap is a mystery. I think it’s a reflection of what we value. Seven million jobs are available now; most of them don’t require a four-year-degree. They require training. And yet we’re obsessed, not really with education, you know. What we are obsessed with is credentialing. And so people are buying diplomas. And they’re buying their degrees. It’s a diploma dilemma, honestly. It’s expensive. It is getting worse. It's not just the kids holding the note. It is us.

Wise, right on the point, words from Mr. Rowe.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Lori Loughlin and All Political Prisoners: https://mises.org/wire/free-lori-loughlin-and-all-political-prisoners

Quote

Everybody knows that college admissions aren’t made only on academic merit and haven’t been for a long time. If you want your son or daughter to be admitted to college and you have enough money, all you have to do is donate a lot of money to the university and your child will have no trouble getting in.

Here are a few examples: In 2015, Stewart Cohen gave $5 million to the USC School for Cinematic Arts. The gift came right after the very competitive school admitted Cohen’s twin daughters. In another well-known case, the New York real estate tycoon Charles Kushner pledged $2.5 million to Harvard in 1998 shortly before his son Jared was admitted. Jared Kushner’s grades would not have gotten him into the highly selective school without the donation.

Admitting students with poor qualifications takes place far wider than this. Because athletic teams make big money for the university, athletes get admitted under special programs. In our current politically correct climate, black students who score below the norm on the SAT and other admissions tests are not only admitted but actively sought out. Admitting them has been assiduously promoted by the federal government.

Is it a good or bad thing that college admissions aren’t made only on academic merit? I have an opinion on this issue, and I’m sure you do as well. But our opinions shouldn’t be forced on others. In a free society, the government shouldn’t force universities to follow affirmative action programs, but otherwise it should be up to the universities to decide whom they are going to admit, and on what basis. That’s what the free market is all about.

Given this record, why should parents who try to get their kids into college be investigated by the FBI, charged with major crimes, and be subjected to a campaign of defamation in the media? Yet this is exactly what has happened.

A number of parents, including the actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, payed William “Rick” Singer and his company The Key a total of about $25 million to get their children admitted to elite colleges. Singer paid people to take college admissions tests like the ACT, bribed coaches to say that the children of his clients were athletic recruits, and in general, went all out for his clients.

Why is this much different from what has been going on for years? Why is this a so-called “national scandal”? You may object that this case is different. The big donors to universities, like what they did or not, played within the rules. These parents are different. They cheated.

This objection ignores something important. College cheating is not new either. For years, students have paid “ringers” to take tests for them. Students buy stolen copies of exams and sell them. Students who don’t want to write their own papers can buy papers online, or pay someone to write the paper for them. You can even buy a masters or doctoral thesis.

Universities don’t like these practices—except when they turn a blind eye to them, such as when athletes are given grades for courses they didn’t take. In a free society, it should be up to each university to decide what to do about cases of cheating. It can put students on probation, suspend them, or expel them, as it thinks proper.

If cheating has been going on for years, why has it now become a national issue? The answer is simple. It is because the FBI has made it one.

The FBI has become a secret police spying on all of us. It bugs phones, wiretaps people, and as it pursues its investigations, lies to people in order to trap them into saying what it wants. The FBI is not bound by any laws and you cannot record them as they deceive you. If you tell them something that is false, or that they say is false, you can go to jail, even if you have not committed a crime. This is what happened to Martha Stewart. She was accused of “insider trading”. She wasn’t guilty, but because the FBI said she made misleading statements, she went to jail.

Isn’t there something morally offensive about an agent of this Orwellian agency making a public statement denouncing the parents who had paid Singer for using their money and “privilege” to gain unfair advantage over other students, depriving them of their chance to gain admission? Why does the FBI have the right to determine the basis on which students should be admitted to college? Apparently, the FBI wants to enforce “equal opportunity” on the American public at the point of a gun. This is not a metaphor. Felicity Huffman was arrested at her home in Los Angeles by FBI agents with their guns drawn.

 It’s even worse than that. The government is using laws designed to entrap the Mafia to threaten the parents with Draconian penalties. They are being charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering—all because they paid money to get their kids into college!

You might think that the parents have a remedy for this persecution, even though it is risky. Can’t they plead not guilty and try to convince a jury that the charges are ridiculously overblown? If you thought that, you have underestimated the power and malevolence of the government. Before a defendant comes to trial, the government will offer a “plea deal.” In this arrangement, the defendant agrees to plead guilty. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove its case in a trial, and in return, it will recommend a “lenient” sentence for the defendant. The judge will usually follow this recommendation. For example, after Felicity Huffman pled guilty, the government has recommended that she serve “only” 4 to 10 months of prison time. If a defendant refuses the deal and is found guilty in a trial, the sentence will almost always be much harsher than what was offered in the deal. Also, unless the defendants plead guilty, the government can keep bringing more and more severe charges against them. You must give away your right to a fair trial, or risk going to prison for years. Lori Loughlin has been brave enough to defy the government. For that, she deserves our admiration. She should not be condemned for what at worst are minor peccadillos but celebrated for her heroism in refusing to bow down before “that coldest of all cold monsters, the state.”

 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/05/13/felicity-huffman-plead-guilty-college-admissions-scandal-rick-singer-varsity-blues-sat-cheating/1151158001/

FTA:

The former "Desperate Housewives" actress admitted to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud for paying Rick Singer, the nationwide scheme's alleged mastermind, $15,000 to have someone correct SAT answers for her oldest daughter. 

As part of a plea deal, federal prosecutors recommended Huffman receive a four-month prison term, substantially lower than the maximum 20 years the charges carry. A sentencing hearing for the star was set for Sept. 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Federal Prosecutors Are Punishing Actor Lori Loughlin for Exercising Her Right To Defend Herself: https://reason.com/2019/10/24/federal-prosecutors-are-punishing-actor-lori-loughlin-for-exercising-her-right-to-defend-herself/

Plea deals aren’t about mercy these days. They’re about intimidating defendants into giving up the right to a trial.

Quote

Department of Justice attorneys turned the screws on actor Lori Loughlin and 10 other parents this week by bringing new charges against them for attempting to use their wealth to buy their kids spots at selective colleges.

The new charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and money laundering, filed Tuesday, came just a day after four other parents caught up in the "Varsity Blues" scandal accepted plea deals in Boston. This is not a coincidence. As USA Today's reporting makes abundantly clear, the parents who pleaded guilty did so because prosecutors had threatened them with these additional charges. Loughlin and the other parents face harsher criminal punishment now entirely because they are insisting on their innocence:

The new charges do not allege new actions. Prosecutors are looking to ramp up pressure against the remaining 23 parents, coaches and other defendants who have not caved and are preparing for trial in the "Varsity Blues" case.

"Today's charges are the result of ongoing investigation in the nationwide college admissions case," U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in a statement. "Our goal from the beginning has been to hold the defendants fully accountable for corrupting the college admissions process through cheating, bribery and fraud."

 

Prosecutors are only now insisting on holding the defendants "fully accountable" because these parents are insisting on exercising their constitutional right to a fair trial. Loughlin and the other defendants would not have received these additional charges if they'd accepted plea deals. One of the parents told the judge Monday that the Justice Department told them it would not seek any further punishment if the parent accepted the deal.

This behavior by federal prosecutors is both common and a frustrating subversion of the criminal justice process. Despite our constitutional right to a trial, a full 97 percent of all criminal cases are resolved with plea deals, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

And when you look at what's happening with Loughlin, it's easy to see why. Actor Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, a year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service, and a $30,000 fine. By adding charges against Loughlin (and other parents) of conspiracy to commit bribery and money laundering, prosecutors are adding months and even years of additional prison time in the event the parents are convicted.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts boasts that these new charges carry prison sentences of up to 25 years. There is absolutely no way any of these people will receive sentences that harsh, but it's abundantly clear that the prosecutors want to punish them not just for the offenses they are alleged to have committed, but also for insisting on going to trial. What's more, the new indictments include asset forfeiture requests should the defendants be convicted.

The NACDL doesn't publicly comment on specific cases, but last year the organization published a report about this trend, which it and other criminal justice reform groups have long called "the Trial Penalty."

The NACDL report warns that Americans are essentially losing their Sixth Amendment right to a trial because of the massive charging disparity between the offenses prosecutors offer in a plea deal and the offenses they take to trial. The report notes that "the mere decision to charge triggers a domino effect making a guilty plea the only rational choice in most cases. And as trials and hearings decline, so too does government accountability. Government mistakes and misconduct are rarely uncovered, or are simply resolved in a more favorable plea bargain." Studies of exonerations have determined that hundreds of people who serve prison time for crimes that it later turns out they didn't commit had pleaded guilty in the hopes of less punishment.

What's happening to Loughlin and these other parents happens to hundreds of poorer, less connected defendants every day across the country. But we should be careful not to see it as karmic "balance" that a small group of wealthy, privileged parents is now getting railroaded by the system. It's not more "fair" when prosecutorial overreach affects rich people.

It is, however, an excellent opportunity to talk about the fact that our criminal justice system punishes defendants not just for breaking the law, but also for exercising their constitutional rights.

I wonder if this kind of despicable, lazy behavior by federal prosecutors can somehow be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and stopped.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Federal Prosecutors Are Punishing Actor Lori Loughlin for Exercising Her Right To Defend Herself: https://reason.com/2019/10/24/federal-prosecutors-are-punishing-actor-lori-loughlin-for-exercising-her-right-to-defend-herself/

Plea deals aren’t about mercy these days. They’re about intimidating defendants into giving up the right to a trial.

I wonder if this kind of despicable, lazy behavior by federal prosecutors can somehow be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and stopped.

 

Be careful what you ask for. If prosecutors had to stop incentivizing defendants to plea bargain, and had to try all those cases, either the constitutional right to a speedy trial would become meaningless, or we’d have to triple the number of prosecutors and double the number of judges, courtroom personnel, physical facilities, etc. You willing to pay for that?

Edited by Bobref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...