"faced a life term before pleading guilty just days before a trial, striking a deal"
I don't see a jury and it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt either. He simply decided a plea deal was a more likely better outcome.
So how is it that prosecutors can't conjure up a single case against a top exec, slap together a long list of charges and get a plea deal out? This is pretty much their job description nowadays. Juries don't enter into it.
You can't bring a case if you don't think you can get a jury conviction. It's unethical. Prosecutors brought two Bear Stearns executives to trial near the beginning of the financial crisis and they were acquitted.
Of course it is unethical, as is piling on 20+ separate charges for a single act and then doing a plea deal for one.
That's the point: if you are being unethical already, does it hurt you to occasionally steamroll someone higher up the food chain in the same manner? That's just keeping the peace.
But to ignore vast abuses on the one side, and then list everything out of the UN charter when it comes to why you can't prosecute bank executives - come on..
I agree piling on charges just in hopes of extracting a plea deal is unethical.[1]
However you're talking about a totally different sort of unethical prosecution. When the government steamrolls a drug dealer, they have a ton of physical evidence of an illegal act. You can debate whether those acts should be illegal, or the justice of the sentences, but a jury would definitely convict on the basis of the evidence.
What you're talking about is charging people for crimes when you can't even articulate what specific acts they did were illegal or present concrete evidence of illegal acts a jury could convict on.
[1] A lot of that practice was the result of DOJ policies that required prosecutors to bring charges to maximize the sentence. Obama recently eliminated that policy allowing prosecutors to use their discretion.
I'd approve putting CEOs and hierarchies of managers in jail, I mean as long as jail is applied to the lowly anyway. I wonder what's the point where it starts hurting the economy. After all, having 6% of the black population, 2% of Hispanic and 1% of the white population [1] must have significant effect on the industry; but if managers faced a chance of an exit through jail, would it hurt the economy? After all, they don't "work", in the sense of transforming matter. They make decisions - if 1% were in jail, would we lack people who take decisions? People like the CEO of VW make unlawful decisions, killing millions. Would it give room to renew the elites, especially with people who have a sense of responsibility?
The top exec is going to have better legal representation and a lot more media attention than your average accused murderer, never mind your average person on a drugs or assault charge.
"faced a life term before pleading guilty just days before a trial, striking a deal"
I don't see a jury and it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt either. He simply decided a plea deal was a more likely better outcome.
So how is it that prosecutors can't conjure up a single case against a top exec, slap together a long list of charges and get a plea deal out? This is pretty much their job description nowadays. Juries don't enter into it.