Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this particular case there's no trace of a mortgage, a burgeoning rent payment, mitigating circumstances or adult obligations to tempt him, just the same crass materialism that many here condemn - he bought a Bimmer. He gave that money back to the corporate overlords as quickly as it hit his hot hand. He would've undoubtedly obtained a different sentence if there was evidence that he thought this was the windfall that would save his sick kid sister's life, or something.
"The money was reportedly spent at a car dealership, various stores and a fast-food restaurant."
The young mans punishment is too extreme. 10 years probation is far too much. I feel he should be ordered to pay only half of it back. The bank should foot the other half of the bill for their error and for causing this whole problem in the first place.
Call me ethically compromised - but it doesn't sit right that there is only one party at fault here.
Ok, you're ethically compromised.
Why is 10 years probation far too much? Is it that hard to avoid doing something illegal for 10 years?
I don't know what the punishment should be. The kid should give back any money he has left and return or sell the car he bought and return that money. After he has given back all that he possibly can. If the bank has to eat some loss and it looks like the kid has learned a lesson I could support a minimal punishment. He should certainly not benifit from what he did.
What he did was a sanitized version of bank robbery , to him it was obvious the bank had made a mistake,it was obvious the money was not his,he went ahead and spent money that he knew wasnt his basically robbing the bank,..Jail term? tough call.Bottom line IMO he robbed the bank or at the very least committed a fraudulent act like writing bad checks, i'd reluctantly give him a year in jail to set a precedence for such behavior.
I have to wonder; why are so many people willing to allow THE BANK to make errors and accept NO responsibility or liability (other than a little embarrassment)?
While it is true that the young man should not have spent the money, and should have talked to the bank the minute he noticed he was suddenly rich, why does THE BANK bear no responsibility for giving the kid the money?
THE BANK made a mistake, literally STOLE money from one customer and gave it to another customer! Where is THEIR punishment?
I have to wonder; why are so many people willing to allow THE BANK to make errors and accept NO responsibility or liability (other than a little embarrassment)?
While it is true that the young man should not have spent the money, and should have talked to the bank the minute he noticed he was suddenly rich, why does THE BANK bear no responsibility for giving the kid the money?
THE BANK made a mistake, literally STOLE money from one customer and gave it to another customer! Where is THEIR punishment?
It was a clerical error, not literally stealing the money from one and giving it to another. If you can't see the difference I can't help your type of thinking. The man KNEW the money was not his and spent it anyway. 10 years probation is NO jail time. Fair sentence to me. What he does after being put on probation is ALL on him.
I have to wonder; why are so many people willing to allow THE BANK to make errors and accept NO responsibility or liability (other than a little embarrassment)?
While it is true that the young man should not have spent the money, and should have talked to the bank the minute he noticed he was suddenly rich, why does THE BANK bear no responsibility for giving the kid the money? THE BANK made a mistake, literally STOLE money from one customer and gave it to another customer! Where is THEIR punishment?
No. People working at the bank made a mistake. They didn't steal the money.
I analogize this to traffic accident. Smith is busy thinking about work and he misses a stop sign. He hits a vehicle in the intersection, driven by Jones, that had the right of way. Under the law, Smith is negligent or careless and has a duty to reimburse Jones for the damage to his car and for any injuries that Jones may have suffered to his person. We don't put Smith in jail because he made a mistake.
Now compare what Smith did with the following:
Brown and his friend have a bet. Brown bets that he can drive through a stop sign and cause a collision with another vehicle and that he won't be hurt in the process. Brown intentionally seeks to cause the collision. In the process of doing this, another driver Black is seriously injured and his car is totaled. In this situation it is not enough that Black simply reimburses Brown. His causing this collision intentionally is a criminal act. Under the law of most states he could be charged with an aggravated assault which is a felony.
The point is that whatever the bank did it was not intentional. The act of taking the money was intentional. That is why it falls into the category of a criminal offense and is the more significant wrong.
If you and others can't accept this explanation at this point, you really do live in a different world than most of us do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
tough call.Bottom line IMO he robbed the bank or at the very least committed a fraudulent act like writing bad checks, i'd reluctantly give him a year in jail to set a precedence for such behavior.
