[ConfuciusSay]

When one compares it to other crimes that not only go unpunished, but rewarded, this particular crime is comparatively insignificant - thus the "more or less".

I trust in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, you were speaking out equally vigourosly in favor of jailing bank executives.

[ConfuciusSay]

For what? LOL

Even Ben Bernanke says we should have jailed banking executives after 2008.

In case you're not being purposefully obtuse, you can watch about how the reams of evidence of criminal behavior (you know, of actual written-down crimes) was ignored by the justice department (you know, the same agency that is pursuing this case), via PBS Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/

Frontline, was able to find direct evidence of executive criminality with just a cursory investigation (with no power of subpoena). The excuses coming out of the justice department's mouthpiece were so laughable, that he resigned the day after the piece went to air.

There's a two-tier system in place here, and crimes like defacing a website causing a paltry amount of damage, although real, should be the crimes the justice department ignores if they're not able to apply justice to all crimes fairly and evenly.

[tptacek]

Jailing bank executives for what? I am not vigorously in favor of jailing people for things that are not actual written-down crimes.

Are you asking me if I think there should be more criminal statutes in banking? That's a pretty boring question. Of course I do.

[tedunangst]

I vigorously support the notion that bank executives who have broken the law should go to prison.