If my kids tried to get out of trouble by using the same excuse that a criminal scam artist used in court this week to plead for leniency in his sentencing, I might double their punishment out of anger at the flawed thinking. Or I might just have to laugh. The excuses he used in federal court sound more like a child’s than a grown-up’s.
In essence, Phillip Levaughn Raglin argued through his attorney that his crimes weren’t as bad as everyone else’s. And those OTHER people aren’t even getting punished, he reasoned, so the judge should be lenient to him. Raglin bilked investors out of about $900,000 by convincing them to buy into his phony company.
Here are the details, described by writer Tony Thornton in The Oklahoman:
Through his attorney, Raglin said that the judge should give him mercy because his crimes are “minimal compared to the ‘financial bandits’ who caused the Wall Street meltdown but who are ‘getting off nearly scot free,’” Thornton wrote.
By what reasoning? Don’t we as parents teach our children that we are accountable for our own actions, no matter what the rest of the world does? That there are standards in place that don’t change?
I don’t care what everyone else did in this case. Yes, the Wall Street fiasco is a mess and there should be some fallout for those involved.
But that doesn’t matter for Raglin, nor would it matter in our house. If an action is wrong, it’s wrong, no matter who else did or didn’t do it or whether they got punished for it or not. I hope my kids learn that lesson now so they don’t have to learn it before a judge in a courtroom.
If my kids tried to use that logic on me, I’d like to believe I would see straight through it. Apparently the federal judge in Muskogee did, too. He sentenced Raglin to 10 years in prison — the maximum — and ordered him to pay more than $1 million in restitution.
Here’s a related “Mom-ism” for thought: “Doing what is right is not always easy but it’s ALWAYS right.”
And ideally that would apply whether everyone else is doing it or not.
For great reading involving this case, check out the court documents (links below):
Defense attorney Robert Ridenour’s arguments for leniency — ” Phillip is supremely confident and optimistic … (and) wants to be recognized and respected for his inteliigence.”
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/docs/Raglin%20Defense.pdf
And prosecutor Susan Dickerson Cox’s arguments for the maximum sentence for Raglin: “He is narcissistic, materialistic and arrogant concerning his financial dealings.”
http://static.newsok.biz/sites/newsok/docs/Raglin%20Prosecution.pdf
~Lillie-Beth Brinkman