Fox News reports that actress Lori Loughlin has settled into a routine after a weepy first night in federal prison.
Loughlin and her husband both pleaded guilty after getting busted paying bribes to get their daughters accepted into the University of Southern California, along with several other prominent people who actively and knowingly took part in the wide-ranging college admissions fraud scandal.
What she did was undeniably wrong. Despite already having enormous wealth and social status, the “Full House” actress sought to give her kids an unfair and unearned advantage at the expense of others who could be denied a spot in the competitive selection process.
It’s a deplorable thing to have done, and people are rightfully outraged at the idea of a privileged rich person using their money in a way that actively harms the future of someone else who is less fortunate and more deserving.
But.
Does prison really make the most sense as a punishment? Loughlin is not a physical danger to society, which is the main reason to lock someone up. Jails and prisons mainly exist to keep the public safe from violent criminals.
As part of the plea deal, Loughlin agreed to serve a two-month sentence and she also agreed to pay a $150,000 fine. Her fashion-designer husband agreed to serve a five-month sentence and pay a $250,000 fine.
It’s easy to argue that prison time is important even in a non-violent situation like this because it acts as a future deterrent to others who might consider breaking the law. And deterrents are undeniably important since many crimes, especially white-collar crimes, are hard to catch and prosecute. People need to know there will be consequences.
But, given the particular circumstances of this case, wouldn’t it have been better to give Loughlin and her husband the option of both avoiding prison in exchange for paying a substantially larger fine? We’re talking something to the tune of “sell the mansion and downgrade to a smaller abode” kind of fine. A fine so steep that they’d seriously consider choosing a prison sentence rather than paying to stay out.
Sure, in most instances rich people should not be able to simply buy their way out of doing time. That would set a horrible precedent and send a horrible message; you don’t want some tech billionaire thinking they can simply write a check if they get caught. The law, and threat of punishment, must apply to everyone.
But if the idea is to remediate the harm that was caused in this instance, then allowing Loughlin to forfeit all of the income she earned on the Netflix reboot “Fuller House” seems like a good idea. That money could then go specifically toward scholarships for low-income students, or college prep-programs, or any number of other worthwhile programs that would help disadvantaged kids.
Allowing Loughlin to make amends in this way would still serve as a deterrent, because the fine would be sufficiently large enough to hurt, and she would still have to do community service as part of her punishment. The lesson would still be learned, and there would be a redemptive aspect to it.
As a taxpayer, which do you prefer? Do you want the government to spend your money to keep Aunt Becky locked up in prison, or would you rather her money go toward doing some positive good for the community?
One of these two plans is about vengeance, the other is about repair. Quoting Uncle Jessie: “Have mercy.”
What do you think – do you agree? Let us know in the comments!
Join the Discussion