I really don’t find either one all that new or terrible compared to other things in the world today. Of the two I would probably pick the admissions as the lesser of the evils.
It’s interesting that the OP specifically asked about the charges against Huffman and Loughlin as compared to the Smollett situation. And in order to prove that this couldn’t be a serious question, you repeatedly ignore Huffman/Loughlin and pretend that the comparison is between Smollett and Singer.
Which I guess suggests where you would rank the respective offenses.
The Huffman/Loughlin “case” goes well beyond three people, Falchion.
“This guy faked a mugging which involved 3 people. This other crime involved hundreds of victims and perpetrators… but I only want you to think about two of the perpetrators and ignore all the other victims and criminals”… lol, that is quite the loaded question. I can see why they are similar in scope! :rolleyes:
So a whole one guy faked one hate crime and now I’m supposed to believe the victims of real hate crimes will forever suffer for his actions?
You have got to be fuckin kidding me with this bullshit. The least you people can do is stop pretending like you actually believe the victims of real hate crimes to begin with.
I can understand the confusion. Perhaps if the OP had first acknowledged that “the admissions scandal is more pervasive” and then sought to limit it to “an individual level” and asked whether “Felicity Huffman or Loughlin [should] expect her case to be dismissed” the OP might have made more sense.
The various defendants in the admissions scandal have been charged with various crimes based on various actions. There’s nothing incoherent (or even “loaded”) about limiting the question to a subset of those alleged crimes or a specific subset of defendants.
Yeah but Smollett still denies it was a ruse. It took an examination of the video otherwise it’s their word against Smollett’s and if Jussie had his way they would still be in jail.
If calling the police to support racial hatred is a crime then yes (but unfortunately I don’t think it is). If they filed a false report then yes. In other words, if they committed a crime then yes so what’s your point?
So since they were not punished it is OK that Smollett wasn’t? How about they all should have been punished?
I think what Jussie did was wrong, but apart from the time and taxpayers dollars wasted on his investigation, it was a victimless crime. If he had pointed the finger at an innocent person or had allowed innocents to be implicated, then it wouldn’t have been a victimless crime.
Peppermint Patty et al.'s antics weren’t victimless.
And neither were Loughlin and Huffman’s crimes.
My greater point is that it would nice for people to be consistent with their outrage. Lying about being a victim is either always deserving of criminal prosecution (in which case we should all be calling for the president’s impeachment, at the very least) or it is something that should be judged on a case-by-case basis, just like any other crime.
The college admissions scandal is exponentially worse.
Smollett tied up some of the resources of the Chicago PD for a few days, made a fool of himself, and possibly harmed the overall discussion about LGBTQ rights by carrying out a false flag attack (in a matter of speaking).
Whereas the college admissions scandal is the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem. I don’t know how many deserving kids were denied a spot at an elite university thanks to other kids scheming their way in, at least as far as the ongoing criminal case is concerned. A few dozen, by my math. But of course, these are the people who got caught. I’d say the number who don’t get caught is in the hundreds, nay thousands, each year.
Remember the Tawana Brawley hoax? That was much worse, but it doesn’t seem to make people not believe in hate crimes. Some shithead lying and only getting away with it for a few days is not going to change society much. Not that I wouldn’t be fine with prosecuting him.
The college scandal splits society far more. People did know that if you gave a ton of money to a college you’d get special treatment, but that is more or less out in the open. The colleges didn’t get bribed. Scum coaches got bribed.
This could do some good if colleges pay special attention to rich applicants.
The rich are different from you and me. They have fewer morals.
The only people felicity huffman and lori loughlin risked getting arrested were themselves and those involved in the fraud. They can buy their indulgences with community service and scholarships for the students they displaced and then some.
smollett risked getting someone falsely arrested and their life ruined. This is why the Tawana Brawley hoax was bad. Smollett can buy his indulgences the same way. Pay for the money wasted and then some.
The measure is amount of hurt, not who could have gotten arrested. Someone didn’t get into the schools that should have, as opposed to the wasting of police resources and the possibility of having someone arrested and tried in the court of public opinion, which would have been worse but did not happen. It’s a judgement call which is worse if you go by the OP and look at the two people asked about.
You’re measuring outcome vs the crime committed. I suppose you could argue that Smollett never intended it to be investigated. But when he doubled down on the false report the nature of his actions changed.
Heck, he’s still insisting it happened. What if the police arrest the 2 brothers and prosecuted them based on the evidence?
That’s EXACTLY what he did. He hired two guys then had them arrested.
The motive in the Smollett case (personal financial gain, political manipulation) was more egregious IMO than the college admission scandal, whose motive (as far as the parents are concerned) was to get their kids into a good school. The motive of all of those who accepted bribes is by far the worst.
But the scope of the college admissions scandal is far worse than any harm Jussie Smollet has done to society. I’ve read the ‘Operation Varsity Blues’ indictment & the parents involved went from ‘minor/maybe they didn’t even know they were breaking the law’ to full blown shameless bribery & blatent tax fraud. Some of those parents are less culpable than Smollett and some are much more. But overall, colllege admission scandal is much worse.
But they were in on the scam! So they weren’t “innocent” in any real sense of the word.
Jussie is an idiot. It was inevitable that his fraud would be detected because he didn’t bother to spin a convincing story. In contrast, Loughlin and Huffman’s fraud was sophisticated enough that the two easily could have gotten away with it (as so many families apparently did). They actually achieved their aim (unless their kids are kicked out of school).
I don’t think Smollett “had them arrested” even though the two brothers were, in fact, briefly arrested. Smollett intentionally misdescribed his attackers as white men. He didn’t identify them as his personal trainers. It’s very obvious that while Smollett wanted to appear to be the victim of a hate crime, he never intended his accomplices to be arrested, which would have directed suspicion back to him. The Chicago PD has a terrible reputation for solving crimes. They have a terrible reputation for looking out for black citizens. No big city police department spends much time on simple assault cases. Smollett thought this meant that he could report the “crime” and that the Chicago PD would do nothing about it. Nobody was supposed to get arrested. The Chicago PD has been under a lot of recent scrutiny for discriminating against black citizens. It turns out that a crime involving a black celebrity victim, national media attention, and potential FBI involvement in a hate crime investigation all lit a fire under the Chicago PD’s ass. The Chicago PD did their job professionally and quickly. Kudos to them.
It would have been nearly impossible to prosecute the brothers because Smollett’s inconsistent statements and the evidence of his collaboration with the brothers would have doomed any case.
Going back to the OP, I can’t decide which case is worse. Both are bad for society in different ways and I can’t estimate their disparate effects.
Huh.
I don’t see either as on the scale of horrific crimes.
They are both examples of very entitled individuals cluelessly thinking that what they are doing is victimless, that the only impact will be benefit to themselves.
The admissions people will pay a greater price simply because the case against them is much more solid.
To the degree that there were any direct victims the tie is closer to them as well - for each of them that got in someone else did not. Now true that someone could have been a someone who was equally undeserving by grades, activities, and test scores, and whose parents bought their way in legally, with a large donation to the college, whose property the admission spot is to sell, but still, it could have been … a deserving athlete?
In Smollet’s case the path to harm is more convoluted, the possible impact on the believing of true hate crime victims. And the cost of the resources spent on his false alarm (dollars and opportunity cost to real crime prevention and solving). The brothers were not innocent victims in any case.
But really neither of these are surprising and the reactions that they are as unto serial killers has been over the top.
BTW OP if these schools are “second rate” in your mind what counts as “good”?
Omar has learned from the streets!
The OP’s post is a stupid way to start a discussion of fairness in the justice system.
Anybody who is going to automatically dismiss a hate crime because Smollett lied is probably not going to be sympathetic to a real hate crime even if Smollett had not happened. I believe that the type of person who would do that is the same type who thinks “she was asking for it” if a woman not in a burqa equivalent is raped.
The college admissions bs directly hurt more people. My feelings on education for profit not withstanding, every college has a finite number of spots. Every person who got their spot through bribery or fraud STOLE the spot of somebody who legitimately earned it. The victim wasted years of their lives working towards a goal and were cheated out of it.