College Admissions Scandal Verdicts: Are the Punishments Fitting the Crimes? by Dawn Taylor

Recently, I wrote about my thoughts on Felicity Huffman's punishment in the college admissions scandal not being enough. Shortly after, another parent was given a much harsher sentence. Unlike Huffman’s 14 days, the parent was given four months. While the monetary contributions were different, the crimes were very similar. 

Why the difference in outcomes?

In my opinion, both should have received at least four months in prison. Some speculate that the second sentenced parent’s seeming lack of remorse and rush to make excuses didn’t bode well for him. I see it differently. I see it as a judge doing his job and doling out a punishment that sets a precedent in this type of case. It makes a statement that money used for unfair advantage, in this case during the college admissions process, cannot be tolerated. 

Additionally, money that can buy the best legal counsel cannot always provide a favorable outcome. By handing out a light sentence, is that not be an indication that money once again prevailed over good sense? I still believe that Huffman’s sentence was far too light. 

I think her display of remorse, and self-reflection prior to court that showed complete devastation along with complete responsibility for her actions, helped. However, the judge in her case dropped the ball. Unless these high-profile cases are handled with appropriate punishments, money and privilege will be used to help the wealthy succeed, and too often at the cost of those without it.

A third parent was also sentenced to four months in jail, and like the others, handed large monetary fines. I think the fines should be at the very least equal to what they paid to get their kids in to college. And judges should order them to pay four years tuition to a deserving student who doesn't have financial means to attend a good college.

What do you think?

Take 30 seconds and join the 30Seconds community. Inspire ... and be inspired.