<< Words Have Meanings, Even for the New York Times | Main | News Scan >>


Rehab for This Non-Violent Offense?

| 0 Comments
Sentencing "reformers" have finally admitted explicitly that their largesse would extend to violent as well as non-violent offenders.  Still, and for obvious PR reasons, they continue to push the line that "reform" (i.e., early release or no incarceration to begin with) is intended principally for "low-level, non-violent" offenders.  Their argument is that (1) we simply can't afford the present level of incarceration, (2) we're overly punitive in any event, certainly compared to Western Europe, and (3) we can use the money saved to focus on "truly dangerous" criminals.

Today brought news of a "non-violent" offense that very likely cost individual victims no more than $50 or $100 each.  Certainly that's a "low-level" sort of thing for which "reformers" would be scandalized that Puritanical nags (like me) would even contemplate prison.  But I am contemplating it indeed, even though to date only civil charges have been filed.  To boot, I think a sentence of ten or twenty years would be just fine.

The WSJ has the story.
Its title is, "Cancer Charities Called $187 Million Sham:"

A group of family members whose charities claimed to be raising millions of dollars for cancer victims bilked donors to the tune of $187 million over five years, spending some of that money on fancy cars and trips for themselves and their friends, according to a civil suit.

**********************

The defendants spent the money on cars, luxury travel, college tuition and even dating-site memberships for family, friends and employees, the complaint said. Some employees were given cars for personal use, the complaint said...

The charities also paid for "training trips" for employees and their families to luxury destinations, including cruises and two all-expense-paid trips to Walt Disney World, according to the complaint. All the while, the Cancer Fund told the public in its solicitations that its "number one priority is patient care..."


Now you might wonder what the "patient care" consisted of, just in case there was any.  Wonder no more:


Money that was spent on cancer patients by the fund, according to the complaint, went toward care packages that included Little Debbie snack cakes, sample-size shampoos and iPod cases. These were sent to individuals regardless of age or gender...


Gads, and they didn't sent me a single snack, even though I've had three kinds of cancer.


Still, their fund-raising pitch was highly emotional  --  as emotional as the pitch for sentencing reform to "help" communities "crippled by mass incarceration":


A pamphlet from the Breast Cancer Society Inc., one of the groups cited, says it is "one of the few national breast cancer charities in the U.S., providing direct help and financial aid to those suffering from breast cancer today!"

"Breast cancer effects [sic] almost every family in the United States, directly or indirectly, as the number of those diagnosed with breast cancer constantly increases," said the pamphlet, made public by the office of New York state's attorney general. "A family could never prepare for this type of devastation."


Now the problem with a pitch like this goes beyond swindling thousands of good-hearted people out of their money.  It goes beyond diverting what could have been useful contributions to medical science into snack cakes and shampoo bottles.  It goes beyond lining the pockets of liars so they be off to Disney World.

The greater problem, it seems to me, is the erosion of trust and generosity that flows from a scheme like this.  There is no way to trace its corrosive effects as they ripple down the culture.

Still, I'm eager to hear from sentencing "reform" advocates why "community service" should suffice for these charitable folks  --  non-violent offenders, one and all, 




Leave a comment

Monthly Archives