> Civil forfeiture isn't a means to punish people for wrongdoing
Could have fooled me.
Thing is, when you are the CEO and you make the big paycheck, being a target for the mob is part of the job. 1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed. They can't control the weather, but it was someone's responsibility to make sure there was enough food stored.
The common sentiment is that the people who caused the failure should not be allowed to keep the money they made driving the ship ashore. Nobody is forced to be a CEO with million-dollar comp. It isn't some travesty of justice when they are held accountable.
Well I'm hopeful we can move beyond medieval practice and that the presumption of innocence will prevail. Fortunately things seem to be going well for team rule-of-law.
Again, what presumption of innocence? The bank failed, they should have to give up the bonuses and stock gains. It should be statutory to prevent a moral hazard.
> medieval practice
Calm down, no one said we should hang, draw and quarter them, exile them, or do anything untoward. It's a capitalist system, and this is a capitalist penalty.
You said "1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed."
I'm saying we should not look to the distant past for guidance on how to handle situations like this.
The presumption of innocence applies here because we shouldn't punish individual bank employees unless we demonstrate to a jury of their peers that they broke a law that existed at the time they broke the law. The default should be they keep their bonus and if they broke the law, they pay a fine. Fortunately they are protected by the constitution, there is no possible way the government can take their money without a trial.
It's an analogy about leadership? I didn't suggest a medieval punishment and I obviously recognize we don't do bills of attainder in America. I'm speaking for what the average person is feeling. Literally started off with saying "the average person is sick of seeing rich people get away with it".
But again, what presumption of innocence? I'm saying that if you are a bank CEO and your bank fails, it doesn't actually matter whether a reasonable choice was made or not. Bank failures affect all Americans, so there should be a penalty for causing that disruption. Most people would call that fair.
Could have fooled me.
Thing is, when you are the CEO and you make the big paycheck, being a target for the mob is part of the job. 1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed. They can't control the weather, but it was someone's responsibility to make sure there was enough food stored.
The common sentiment is that the people who caused the failure should not be allowed to keep the money they made driving the ship ashore. Nobody is forced to be a CEO with million-dollar comp. It isn't some travesty of justice when they are held accountable.