wsj reports today that the father who's 80 got 15 years while the son got 20 years. i'd love to know how these sentences compare to other white collar crimes over past 20 years. i believe milken served less than 2 years for a higher dollar figure crime. same with ivan boesky. while i am happy that there is govt interest in fighting corporate corruption (maybe they'll focus on the govt variety next) it is still troublesome to see them do so in such a political way. while i have no sympathy for the rigas's, i am deeply troubled by the inequity in this approach. how can gary winnick be lauded by the nytimes after taking $600m from investors in his fraudulent venture (global crossing) and john moores be the pillar of san diego, owning the padres, after taking a similar amount from his peregrine systems after that company filed for bankruptcy for faking $1 billion in profits. i dont mean to say that either of these guys had their hand in the cookie jar (moores was never accused of anything while winnick was exonerated), but the whole thing does strike me as bizarre and lopsided and not the way i would hope to see our justice system managed. shouldnt there be some test of consistency with past rulings? is this really a deterent or more of a sign that large corrupt acts will fare better if matched with large political donations? makes me wonder how long ken lay's donations to bush served in protecting him. and how can it be fair for the executives at haliburton (accused of multiple counts of fraud) get away scott free? guess it helps to be part of the ruling class.