When someone robs a bank, a store or their neighbor they are arrested...

[Dover]

go to court, and if convicted they go to jail. They are not given an opportunity to 'settle' - pay a penalty and not have to admit guilt, rather than serve time - and negotiate what that settlement will be in order to pay back as little as possible. So why have so many in the financial sector (banks, Wall St., etc) who have caused so much loss and committed so many crimes, been given that option? Sure there are a few sacrificial lambs who actually do serve time for their crimes (and they ARE criminals), but this legal accomodation seems to be a privilege of the elite class. And perhaps many of these robbers feel it is the cost of doing business. Others focus on changing the laws to lessen oversight and create bigger loopholes.

Nothing new, but watching Charlie Rose's interview with Steven Rattner last night stirred this question up again for me.

[grasswire]

1. steal three pizzas, get life sentence under 3 strikes law

The taxpayers pay $50,000 to keep the petty thief in custody for a year.

Figure that out.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

[Fumesucker]

2. The best, easiest and most risk free way to rob a bank is to own one.. n/t

[jancantor]

3. Not really true

Numerous theft and other cases get nolle pros'd when the victim decides they don't want to prosecute. It is possible to prosecute w/o victim cooperation but very rare in property crimes. Often, there was some kind of "arrangement" in those cases between the victim and the defendant (usually the defendant's attorney). It's not COMMON, but it does happen.

Fwiw, I was a victim of a fraud by a private party. I chose to not even bother with the criminal route, and took him to civil court.

[GoldMedals4U]

4. Because it's white collar crime

White collar criminals are always treated better than blue collar.