Wow. To not only return some of the money to the bank and only take the $100 and then also voluntarily hand himself in takes immense courage and integrity. Poor man :(
Well, yeah, I agree that he clearly acted against his conscience in robbing the bank but he redeemed himself by handing himself in, which in itself is an act of integrity. He clearly regretted ‘robbing the bank’, too - so I can safely say that, yeah, while his first actions may not have been great, he certainly made up for it later by ensuring that he himself is punished for it, and I’d personally that say it takes integrity to admit that your earlier acts were morally wrong. :)
The issue is that there is a federal statute and minimum sentence of 15yrs for robbing a bank. In the first case, there isn't much of a precedent for such a crime. It wasn't violent, either, and so, under the law, the sentence technically doesn't need to be carried out for long.
It's the difference between fraud and bank robbery. The dollar amount doesn't have anything to do with it. Their socioeconomic status is irrelevant as well.
Your tax dollars are now going to house someone for 15 years for stealing what amounts to lunch money for the week.
Lucky you, though. Your hard-earned money will barely be necessary for the guy who took advantage of being in a position of influence and trust in order to actually cause damage to our economy.
Don't expect this to change anytime soon. It's these very same people and their influence that keeps laws regarding this sort of fraud from being tailored to our times.
Lucky you, though. Your hard-earned money will barely be necessary for the guy who took advantage of being in a position of influence and trust in order to actually cause damage to our economy.
Don't expect this to change anytime soon. It's these very same people and their influence that keeps laws regarding this sort of fraud from being tailored to our times.