Sentence is fair for an extremely benign, non-violent crime. Those calling for multi - year sentence have some real anger/reality issues. 

 

Now time for the USA to reduce and release many thousands of non-violent criminals serving ridiculously long sentences for things like "possession". 

Two weeks, wow, wonder if it will be served in the Martha Stewart cell.

One for rich, and poor could not  afford to do it.

Edited September 14, 20196 yr by RJRS1301

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It is not simply about cheating on the SAT exam. It is a total corruption of the qualification system for university. It is a total perversion of the system, that only wealthy people can afford. It discredits the entire entrance system. It is far larger than it appears to be. Prison time would have been appropriate. Frankly, robbing a bank would have been a far nobler thing to do. 

Even with cheating on SAT and all, these children of wealthy parents will very likely not do well as they are not qualified intellectually (don't have the smarts).  If they were they would have gotten in on their own.

So the money spent to get into the University is for nought IMO. 

Just because you attended a certain University does not give you an advantage in life if your grades are poor or you flunk out.  

I cannot imagine any University these days is so full that letting one unqualified student enter is preventing a qualified student from entering.  Victimless crime IMO

11 hours ago, Skallywag said:

Even with cheating on SAT and all, these children of wealthy parents will very likely not do well as they are not qualified intellectually (don't have the smarts).  If they were they would have gotten in on their own.

So the money spent to get into the University is for nought IMO. 

Just because you attended a certain University does not give you an advantage in life if your grades are poor or you flunk out.  

I cannot imagine any University these days is so full that letting one unqualified student enter is preventing a qualified student from entering.  Victimless crime IMO

Why should the rich buy their way into a place they are not entitled to if money was not involved?

it is another example of “entitlement” above others because of wealth 

Only the rich can make their halfwit kid look smart.

Would have been better off giving the money to the kid and telling them to go sit on the beach for a few years. Then a student who earned the position could have gone to University.

4 hours ago, Gracas said:

Only the rich can make their halfwit kid look smart.

Would have been better off giving the money to the kid and telling them to go sit on the beach for a few years. Then a student who earned the position could have gone to University.

And perhaps the primary example of this, is the so called leader of the free world. He would not have gotten into the University of Pennsylvania, without daddy, and his friends. And even with all their wealth and influence, he still could not get into their business school, Wharton. Simply not bright enough. 

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

And perhaps the primary example of this, is the so called leader of the free world. He would not have gotten into the University of Pennsylvania, without daddy, and his friends. And even with all their wealth and influence, he still could not get into their business school, Wharton. Simply not bright enough. 

An even more elevated case would be W Bush.  Jeb didn't go for it, went to a much lesser school and then brought home a Mexican girl to his blue-blooded family.  I never figured out if he was a truly independent person or just a brat spiting his dad.  (Well, actually I did figure it out, three years ago.)

 

Anyone familiar with a book/movie "Splendour in the Grass"?  An essential part of the story was the father determined to see his son graduate Yale.  The kid just wanted to go to the local aggie, the father wouldn't hear of it, and this contributes to the tragedy of the tale.

Well, it's the same here: these are showbiz kids, they have no interest in scholarly pursuits, it's the parents behind all this stuff.  Some people think of their kids like pet dogs being groomed for the kennel club show.

And anyway, if they pursue show biz (why not, they have the most difficult part cut out for them -- the connections), what the hell do they need academic cred for?  Plenty of Hollywood stories from days of yore about movie stars who couldn't read their scripts.

 

Bad move, Lynette.

 

 

On 9/14/2019 at 10:37 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Let's keep some bit of perspective here -- she paid someone to cheat on her daughter's SAT exam results.

 

It's not like she murdered someone or robbed a bank or such...

 

I'm not excusing or defending what she did... But 5 years for paying to cheat on an SAT exam, that's going a bit overboard.

 

 

 

I think I'd lean more towards a monetary penalty that'd give her and others something to think about for a long long time.      Since it's wealthy people involved with this why not have the fine be in the millions of dollars? 

 

42 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

5 hours ago, Gracas said:

Only the rich can make their halfwit kid look smart.

Would have been better off giving the money to the kid and telling them to go sit on the beach for a few years. Then a student who earned the position could have gone to University.

And perhaps the primary example of this, is the so called leader of the free world. He would not have gotten into the University of Pennsylvania, without daddy, and his friends. And even with all their wealth and influence, he still could not get into their business school, Wharton. Simply not bright enough. 

 

"Simply not bright enough. "

 

Are you suggesting an I.Q  of 104 would not be likely to gain him admittance?   

A sentence of 14 days is a slap in the face of every person in the world who is not wealthy or famous, who has struggled to get their kids into a decent school. It is simply another example of the American justice system being completely broken and corrupt. She should have gotten at least a couple of years, or a fine of a million dollars of so, used to pay for several scholarships, for poor kids. 

 

Despite what many of the apologists on this thread are saying, this was a crime. And it should be treated as one that is at least as serious as the crimes that land people in prison for years, for simple possession of drugs. Which is the worse offense? Corrupting a system or using drugs to get high and getting caught? 

4 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

"Simply not bright enough. "

 

Are you suggesting an I.Q  of 104 would not be likely to gain him admittance?   

Well, I think somewhere between 90 and 104 is about right. No, typically an IQ of 104 would probably not be sufficient enough to get one into a school the caliber of Univ. of Penn. Especially if the individual refused to read or study, due to an attitude that he already knew everything there was to know in the universe. 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

A sentence of 14 days is a slap in the face of every person in the world who is not wealthy or famous, who has struggled to get their kids into a decent school. It is simply another example of the American justice system being completely broken and corrupt. She should have gotten at least a couple of years, or a fine of a million dollars of so, used to pay for several scholarships, for poor kids. 

 

Despite what many of the apologists on this thread are saying, this was a crime. And it should be treated as one that is at least as serious as the crimes that land people in prison for years, for simple possession of drugs. Which is the worse offense? Corrupting a system or using drugs to get high and getting caught? 

Usually agree with your posts. Gotta disagree with this one. A COUPLE YEARS??? C'mon Mike. I could get on board with 30 days and a larger fine, but not a "couple years". The average sentence for involuntary manslaughter...you know killing somebody, albeit unlawfully reckless, yet unintentionally...is 10-16 months in the USA and a person is DEAD. The sentence gets longer, the more reckless the unlawful conduct. 

 

Yes the system is flawed and there are plenty of people that should be released or sentences reduced, but hanging this woman out to dry because others have been hung out is not the answer. 

 

This was a fair sentence. The woman is not a criminal. She made a big mistake and has leaned her lesson. Not an "apologist". Didn't even know who she is, but know who her husband is, of course. Wouldn't matter who it is...the sentence is fair and fitting the crime. 

On 9/13/2019 at 8:35 PM, Skallywag said:

Am a bit confused and have not followed this story. 

But it seems to me the College admissions office personnel who accepted the bribe should be prosecuted also.

Yeah, the real conspiracy was between these "consultants" and the admission personnel. The consultants would demand huge payments to "guarantee" admission and use that to pay off people in admissions or athletics dept of the school to find a way to get the kids in. That is why Loughlin and the others plead not guilty. Jared Kushner's Dad can make a multi-million dollar "donation" directly to Harvard and his son gets in and all is fine and dandy but some dopey actress pays what turns out to be a dirty consultant and they get the book thrown at them? This is how protection of the ultra rich really works- a few token barely rich get fed to wolves for minor b.s. to appease the masses while the true ultra rich get away with murder.  

17 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

This was a fair sentence. The woman is not a criminal. She made a big mistake and has leaned her lesson. Not an "apologist". Didn't even know who she is, but know who her husband is, of course. Wouldn't matter who it is...the sentence is fair and fitting the crime. 

 

And contrary to Mike's assertion, I don't think anyone here, and certainly not me, is suggesting what she did wasn't a crime. It WAS a crime.

 

I too think the sentence/penalties could/should have been tougher, just not a ridiculous notion of 5 years for SAT cheating.  But that's what you get in a plea bargain that avoids/saves the govt. having to go thru a trial, etc etc. First time offender, non violent, quick plea and apologizes, takes responsibility...

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

On 9/14/2019 at 5:48 AM, Tug said:

Waaaaa waaaa 2 weeks?how much money was involved?If a minority person did this they would be looking at years in prison 

Glad you asked. You can find that answer here: https://people.com/crime/mom-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-using-friends-address-to-enroll-son-in-school/

On 9/14/2019 at 10:37 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Let's keep some bit of perspective here -- she paid someone to cheat on her daughter's SAT exam results.

 

It's not like she murdered someone or robbed a bank or such...

 

I'm not excusing or defending what she did... But 5 years for paying to cheat on an SAT exam, that's going a bit overboard.

 

See People reporting above...

6 hours ago, mikebike said:

See People reporting above...

 

Huffman's sentence was light. But the 5 year sentence for the homeless woman who faked an address to enroll her son in a better public school district is ABSURD!!!!

Maybe every student who cheats on a test should be put in jail too ?