They were not scamed in their capacity as a customer. This may be a narrow distinction, but I believe it to be a real one.
Sure? I mean, yeah, some people “invested” with Madoff and didn’t get scammed, but he still scammed a ton of people for significant sums of money, and ruined people’s lives. He deserved jail time for the damage he did. He didn’t deserve additional jail time for the damage he did not do. I believe this tends to be taken into account when courts sum up a dollar amount of damage they actually did, and hearing statements from people who were hurt by the crimes.
Yes, my argument is exactly he scammed some people and not others. You seem to be taking that argument to a place I am not. All of the people mentioned did significant damage to others, committed significant crimes, and the fact that the didn’t do some other stuff doesn’t mean their sentences should be in any way reduced.
Just that much like a thief that breaks my car window, rips the stereo out of the dash and damages the dashboard doing it, and vanishes into the night should not be charged with also damaging the engine of my car, or pouring sugar in the gas tank, or steeling stereos of nearby cars when they in fact did none of those other things…
Crazy Eddie is guilty of tax fraud, and a number of other crimes, and I believe punishing him for all those crimes he is guilty of is fair and just.
I don’t think it would be fair or just to also convict him of selling stereos and delivering boxes of rocks.
Crazy Eddie is a criminal. He is guilty of some criminal activity. He is not guilty of all criminal activity.
I don’t see how only holding people accountable for their crimes while not holding them accountable for things they did not do constitutes a bankrupt code of ethics.
