Reply #20: I'm implying one's got absolutely nothing to do with the other. [View All]

[Marie26]

Clarett got the sentence he deserved, IMO. LaFave did not, perhaps. But it's absurd to string two crimes together as if the fact that LaFave got off means that Clarett's sentence was unfair. That's my comment about Duke Cunningham, corrupt Republican, who was convicted of numerous federal bribery charges & sentenced to 8 years in jail. Is that sentence unfair because LaFave didn't get jail time? No, of course not. It wouldn't even occur to us to put the two together. His case should be judged on it's own merits. The OP did put together LaFave & Claret, though, for reasons that are a bit obscure. The OP comes right out & says that Claret's sentence wasn't justified - though he recieved even less than the mandatory minimum. What makes it unfair? How does LaFave make Claret's sentence unfair? There's a lot of people who are always willing to jump to the defense of a sports star & talk about how it's unfair for them to be held accountable. Maybe that's the motive, maybe not. Personally, I think both should be in jail. But I don't see why it's necessary to imply that Claret's sentence is unfair because of LaFave's treatment. They're totally different crimes, totally different penalties, totally unrelated.