backtop


Print 6 comment(s) - last by Furen.. on Jan 19 at 1:25 AM

Four people facing felony charges can accept a deal in which they would be charged with one misdemeanor charge

According to sources familiar with the HP pretexting spy scandal, the California attorney general's office has offered former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Patricia Dunn and four other defendants a bargain in which they can plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge.  The state originally filed four felony charges against the five main people involved.  Along with Dunn, California has filed charges against former HP ethics director Kevin Hunsaker and three private investigators contracted by the company:  Matthew DePante, Bryan Wagner and Ronald DeLia.  

Wagner, a Colorado private investigator, became the first person to plead guilty to charges stemming from the HP spying case.  Wagner pled guilty to conspiracy and aggravated identity theft charges for his role in gathering personal and confidential information on a number of HP board members and journalists in a deceptive manner.

Stephen Naratil, attorney for Wagner, said that the California attorney general’s office proposed to reduce the felony charges to one misdemeanor count at the end of December of last year -- the misdemeanor charge would carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a fine up to $5,000.  The other four have not accepted the offer put on the table by the state.

Each felony count carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine ranging from $10,000 to $25,000.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fines...
By Micronite on 1/18/2007 9:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why they specify a dollar amount for fines.
Wouldn't it be better to do a percentage.
20% of my income would hurt me pretty bad, but that same $ amount wouldn't mean jack to these exec's.

I guess when you've got that much money, it's easy to shuffle it around so it doesn't look like you have that much.

Maybe what they should do is say 20% of last year's income. Since it's on their already-filed tax forms, it's easier.




RE: Fines...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2007 9:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens when a homeless person breaks the law...they get off without any fine whatsoever, since their income is zero? What about a businessman who had a loss last year...the government will PAY him for committing a crime?

Seriously, this notion of punishing people for making more money has gone far enough. Just because someone makes twice what you do doesn't mean they should pay double the fine.


RE: Fines...
By Micronite on 1/18/2007 10:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think you misunderstood my post. I was not suggesting that we punish people who make more money. That's contrary to my view of our captialistic economy. Generally your income is a measure of your contribution to the economy, so if you make it, you usually deserve it. Have fun with it.

However, my post was about punishing criminals, not punishing the rich. In this case I think you have to look at the purpose of fines. Fines are there to act as a deterrent. The less damaging a fine will be for you personally, the less you'll care about committing the crime.
I'm just suggesting there should be a happy medium where everyone is on a level playing field.


RE: Fines...
By Zirconium on 1/18/2007 10:57:05 PM , Rating: 1
I think the nature of the punishment should also be called into question. Even though white-collar crimes are not violent in nature, they can end up hurting a lot more people a lot more seriously than if someone is robbed or has their house broken into. However, a white-collar criminal will likely get a more lenient sentence than a petty thief. I think that more people should be sent to "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison for embezzling money from large corporations and the like. I mean, I'd gladly serve a year-and-a-half in a low security prison if I got $10 million.


RE: Fines...
By Furen on 1/19/2007 1:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
Punishment is supposed to be non-discriminatory and punishing someone who makes more money with stiffer fines would be completely discriminatory.

Regardless, these are criminal cases, the real punishment meted out by them would be the prison terms. These people have enough money that they can probably make these cases long and grueling for the state, particularly so because they touch in a bit of a gray area of the law, so offering them an easy way out is not a bad idea in itself. The lesser beings (ie, the people that actually did the actions ) will likely be railed by the state and the legal precedent will make it so that the next time something like this happens everyone gets railed equally. If someone with resources fights this thing out and ends up winning then we'd have an adverse precedent. Not to mention that the state would burn a lot of taxpayer resources.

What I'm wondering is how a misdemeanor plea would affect a civil suit against these defendants. If they were found guilty of a felony then, obviously, they would get horribly mangled in a civil court but the fact that the state will not prosecute them would make a civil suit more expensive for the plaintiffs (and the misdemeanor plea would be useless since it's likely to be a no contest plea rather than a guilty plea).


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki