|
|
Post by RetirementIsParole on Sept 14, 2019 14:08:45 GMT -5
I think the sentence was actually pretty strong. If this was an isolated case I could see this ACD. Her crime was much less serious than the others. They engaged in elaborate schemes, with faked photos and faked resumes and paid the organizer hundreds of thousands of dollars. This woman only paid $15,000 to help her kid do better on the SATs - with no guarantee of getting into any particular school. For her to get any actual jail time is surprising. She's in her 50s with zero prior criminal history, her crime didnt directly harm anyone else and she did the crime for the wholesome purpose of helping her kid. The Court and the feds were hard on her because they want to send a message to the others to plead guilty and get rid of these cases without the hassle of making the court hear virtually the same case over and over I think everyone one is missing the point her crime did directly harm the student who was next on the list to attend the school that her kid got into and died on the waiting list. Correct, and IIRC she had her daughter's SAT doctored, most people call that cheating. As noted, while not the crime of the century the fine and prison sentence are completely inadequate, 30 grand to a Hollywood actress of her stature is nothing and the prison term should have been at least 30 days.
|
|