Felicity Huffman college scandal - 14 days in prison

She is admitting guilt and taking responsibility for her actions which I think is important. She is also having to do 250 hours of community service and pay $30,000 in fines so she isn't just getting away with it along with the 14 days in prison.

It's always hard to know how best to balance punishments so that they are effective against the very rich without becoming little more than a way to fleece the wealthy for ever-more trivial infractions. There's a sound argument to be made that the very wealthy should pay larger sums of money as fines so that the effect of a punishment is equitable but at the same time if the system is allowed to extract huge sums from wealthy people just because they are wealthy it seems almost inevitable that the police will focus on minor transgressions by the ultra-wealthy as a means of raising money, ignoring more serious crimes committed by the less wealthy because they don't generate any revenue. The zeal with which the British police can chase errant motorists compared to their relative disinterest in catching burglars and vandals is just one manifestation of this problem.

A Hollywood celebrity can probably write a check for $30,000 and barely notice the money is gone. I suspect it will have about the same financial effect on her as a fine of $30 would have on a regular working person. Prison time and community service, assuming she actually does useful community service that doesn't involve little more than rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous, seem like a more effective punishment for people in her position.

Lämmchen said:

I was rather shocked at the somewhat low punishment that Felicity Huffman received for her involvement in the college admissions scandal. She must do 14 days in prison, do 250 hours of community service and pay a $30,000 fine. Does the punishment fit the crime? Will it deter other Hollywood stars from doing the same thing?

Click to expand...

I wasn't; let me explain.

Unlike most state criminal statutes, federal law gives judges (who are about the closest thing to gods in the legal word, as I've been told by friends of mine who work the criminal bar here in Western NC, both state and federal) broad discretion in deciding on criminal sentences. There are a few guidelines they go by, though, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines....

(1) Whether the defendant accepted responsibility for their crimes
(2) The severity of the crime(s) in question
(3) What is the defendant's criminal history (i.e., past offenses)
(4) What sentences best serves the public interest

The key factor here, Lammchen, is that she pled guilty to her crimes, accepted responsibility for them and basically threw herself on the mercy of the court (which the USAO - US Attorney's Office) had no problem with. This sentence also sent a clear message to other defendants in the college admissions scandal (Lori Loughlin, take notes here) and that is that had you (in reference to Laughlin) done the same thing here, this could've been your sentence. Instead, she's gambling on a jury trial and if she loses, that same judge who knows she rejected not one, but two plea deals, is liable to slam the book on her come sentencing time, irrespective of what her attorneys or federal prosecutors want (remember, the Sentencing Guildelines are only guidelines; federal judges can issue whatever sentence they choose to)....

Okay.... just to put this in perspective....


Don't get me wrong, "buying" admission to college is NOT something I support. And the very obvious way these parents did it is condemnable.


But the press is addressing this as if it's rare and something new. This is VERY common and has been going on probably since the days of Adam and Eve. It's a bit more common at private colleges than at public ones, but common everywhere. Yup. When I was a grad student at the University of California, for a couple of years, I worked at the admissions office.... the school "job" the financial aid office gave me.

Now, you need to appreciate that colleges are business that run on MONEY. And even public colleges REQUIRE a lot - a LOT - of donations and extra income; government funding and tuition together fall FAR short of the money needed. And understand, RARE is the college that cannot fill the seats with qualified students (well, maybe Franklin Pierce College). Admission boards are NOT at all about filling the seats with students that won't flunk out. THAT would be simple and not require an admissions department at all. It's NOT at all about filling seats with students who can graduate. And while diversity and other aspects of contributing to the milieu does play a role (at better schools anyway), it's mostly about meeting the budget, getting the new buildings built, etc. Once upon a time, colleges flat out asked for a financial disclosure, even tax returns.... but they are more subtle now.

Colleges often speak of "legacies" These are children of alums. Applications will at times ask where the parents attended college. Parents of students are MAJOR contributors, especially when their child attends the same school they did. The Admissions office will check to see if the parents are contributors (they know if they are contributing to other colleges, too - schools share this info)..... and know that will go way up if they admit their kid; and even if they are not, they are MUCH more likely to become such if their kid is admitted. Some colleges are very up-front about this, most aren't. Advisors to students trying to get into good schools will tell the student that THE single most important thing to convey (perhaps in the essay) is that their parents are alums and/or are very charitable.

College admission boards check your zip code for average income, college education levels, average house costs. They'll even check the exact address, to see the value of that house. Someone who lives in 90210 and lives in a house worth 10 million is just going to have a huge advantage over someone who lives in an subsidized apartment in south central LA. And the reason is.... well...... how likely is Daddy to contribute to the college? How likely is this applicant to become a major donor? Now, the Admissions office will tell you they are doing this for the OPPOSITE reason, to get low income people, but all you have to do is see who get's admitted. It ain't poor Blacks from Watts....

Colleges also get a lot of money from sports (not JUST football). Junior might be a goldmine. Why does the kid who is a basketball star at his high school get admitted? It ain't because he has what it takes to graduate.... He will MAKE MONEY for the school.


Now, I don't mean to say this is the ONLY factor. A great student who will bring MUCH to the school (other than money) is also desired. But the REALITY is ever present: The school needs MONEY. Lots and lots of money. And the #1 source (MAYBE after the taxpayers) is parents of students (present or past) and alums. And who decides who gets to be a student (and thus eventually an alum)? Yup. The Admissions office.




....just to offer a bit of counterbalance to the discussion....





.
.

Lämmchen said:

I was rather shocked at the somewhat low punishment that Felicity Huffman received for her involvement in the college admissions scandal. She must do 14 days in prison, do 250 hours of community service and pay a $30,000 fine. Does the punishment fit the crime? Will it deter other Hollywood stars from doing the same thing?

Click to expand...

I suspect that whatever the judgment against Lori Loughlin turns out to be will be more important in setting a precedent.

Hers was a white collar crime of the rich and famous that has been ignored by our legal system since forever. Granted that it was a slap on the wrist but it at least sends a message ---- "No more!" Let justice be done.