Felicity Huffman yesterday was sentenced to 14 days in prison for trying to rig her daughter's SAT score. What is troubling about this sentence is that the normal sentence for a non-violent crime by a defendant with no prior criminal record would be presumptive probation, in almost every court in the land.
Add to that the fact that there was no real victim here, that she chose to cooperate by pleading guilty, and that she showed genuine remorse, and the sentence is just about impossible to justify. One can't escape the conclusion that the judge and the prosecutor, as so often happens, were unduly harsh because she is a rich celebrity. Surely an average, run-of-the-mill low-profile defendant would have received probation in a case like this.
We can only wait and see what Lori Loughlin, who paid $500,000, compared to Huffman's $15,000, will get as a sentence. If Huffman's crime is worth 15 days, Loughlin will surely get much more than that given her greater crime, and for her lack of cooperation in choosing to roll the dice with a trial instead of cooperating.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
The September Democratic Debate
Having just acquired cable TV service after a five-year lapse, I was excited to be able to watch last night's Democratic debate. Ten candidates filled the stage, the first time all the top candidates were on the same debate stage.
My main takeaway is that the Democratic Party is in great shape. Except for Julian Castro, who made a complete fool of himself, there were nine candidates who would be excellent nominees for the party in 2020. And, it should be said, all nine would all be vastly better than the poor candidates the party has selected in the past 50 years: McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The top three--Biden, Warren, and Sanders--held their own, although only Warren of the three was the most solid. Biden gave a bizarre, rambling, incoherent answer to a question about the legacy of slavery, but otherwise he did OK.
Most of the candidates below the top tier helped themselves. Amy Klobuchar in particular was outstanding, getting her message across that having a candidate from the Midwest would be a good thing for the party and for the country. Cory Booker was effective in presenting himself as someone who can unite the country, as he emphasized the importance of empathy in our daily lives, the message being that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. Mayor Pete gave a great closing speech about his coming out as gay.
A striking aspect of the debate is that for the first time Democratic candidates were willing to talk about the problem of gun violence in this country. Beto O'Rourke had the sound bite of the night, when he said that "Hell, yes, we're gong to take away your (assault weapons)". He later clarified on "Morning Joe" that while it would be a mandatory buyback, he expected law-abiding citizens to comply, and he said "we don't go house-to-house in this country looking for violations of the law".
Almost as important as the debate itself is the after-debate commentary by the participants when interviewed. "Morning Joe" this morning interviewed a bunch of them--Klobuchar, Booker, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke--all of whom distinguished themselves with the clarity of their comments.
My main takeaway is that the Democratic Party is in great shape. Except for Julian Castro, who made a complete fool of himself, there were nine candidates who would be excellent nominees for the party in 2020. And, it should be said, all nine would all be vastly better than the poor candidates the party has selected in the past 50 years: McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The top three--Biden, Warren, and Sanders--held their own, although only Warren of the three was the most solid. Biden gave a bizarre, rambling, incoherent answer to a question about the legacy of slavery, but otherwise he did OK.
Most of the candidates below the top tier helped themselves. Amy Klobuchar in particular was outstanding, getting her message across that having a candidate from the Midwest would be a good thing for the party and for the country. Cory Booker was effective in presenting himself as someone who can unite the country, as he emphasized the importance of empathy in our daily lives, the message being that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. Mayor Pete gave a great closing speech about his coming out as gay.
A striking aspect of the debate is that for the first time Democratic candidates were willing to talk about the problem of gun violence in this country. Beto O'Rourke had the sound bite of the night, when he said that "Hell, yes, we're gong to take away your (assault weapons)". He later clarified on "Morning Joe" that while it would be a mandatory buyback, he expected law-abiding citizens to comply, and he said "we don't go house-to-house in this country looking for violations of the law".
Almost as important as the debate itself is the after-debate commentary by the participants when interviewed. "Morning Joe" this morning interviewed a bunch of them--Klobuchar, Booker, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke--all of whom distinguished themselves with the clarity of their comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
