And why is this a crime, really? Sure, he ruined the integrity of the NBA, but that's not the government's responsibility. Let the NBA fire him and then sue him in a civil court, but to ring him up on criminal charges is just stupid.

What's the over/under on how long he survives in prison?

Alright... I can't freakin resist... I gotta take the bait:

I really can't tell if Marco was being sarcastic or not, but I do agree with the statement. (admittedly I have not read all that much into the case, but if it's just a matter of him taking bribes and rigging games - then I agree).

E4

Fraud can, and I believe should, be punished in both criminal and civil courts. The NBA could have sued him for what, garnished wages while he still enjoyed a regular life? At the very least, the NBA has wasted a small fortune on its lawyers and others it may have needed to retain, not to mention the value of the time its executives, managers, et al, had to spend to deal with this. If the total cost exceeds the restitution, ultimately the fans will have to bear that cost.

On the other hand, criminal penalties serve as a deterrent to others, who will think twice about committing the same or similar crime. A loss in civil court didn't exactly ruin O.J.'s fortune.

so use gov't money (tax dollars everyone pays) to subsidize the cost a private organization would otherwise have to bear itself to ensure a fair competition (and therefore a desirable product)?

Why not have the gov't also subsidize part of the player's salaries? God forbid all those costs be ultimately paid by the fans, too.

He's not just defrauding the NBA - he's defrauding gamblers who don't have access to the inside info.

E4, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (I hope I'm not like this guy!)

While the government's at it, maybe they can go ahead and subsidize the costs for those big expensive stadiums and arenas for sports team too. Oh, right...

Let's first lay out the staunchest libertarian perspective, which says that the sole purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property -- and to be even more specific, it cannot actively prevent crime, but can only punish those who have already committed force or fraud against others. When the NBA has been defrauded like this, what is that other than a violation of property rights?

Let's say the NBA's only recourse is to sue in civil court. What will happen, they'll get a few hundred bucks a month from him for the rest of his life because he managed to shield his assets? Then from a practical standpoint, the expense of the court process is worth the prevention of future fraud. Just like with capital punishment, a stiff sentence makes future would-be offenders at least a little hesitant. If the penalty for fraud is merely a civil lawsuit, a defrauder's only concern would be raking in enough to move elsewhere and hide (even in the open, O.J.-style). The threat of violence is a powerful incentive, including that others (in legitimate self-defense or the government as their agent) can inflict violence on you (i.e. jail) because you violated others.

I'm mostly libertarian, but I'm not one of those who thinks that prison sentences are only for those who commit violent crimes. Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski will serve as examples, after defrauding the owners of the companies they ran. Now, 25 years would be too long for the likes of Donaghy, but let him serve a year or two to show that you can't screw over your employer for personal gain. It's a contractual matter, not statutory, but it's still a criminal offense.

Or we could go with some elements of anarchy I personally like: in that world, the NBA would send over Carmine and Guido, whose Louisville Slugger would have a menage-a-trois with Donaghy's kneecaps. Apparently there have been death threats made against him, so let's just take away the police protection I heard he had for a time. Now that part was ridiculous. He made his bed, let him lie in it.

Oh, on taxation. Now, the NBA pays taxes, you pay taxes, I pay taxes. Why shouldn't we have the protection of a justice system that punishes our violators accordingly? It's not "subsidizing," because subsidizing goes only to a *specifically targetted* entity and *never* anyone else. The proposed subsidies for the West Side Stadium would have gone *only* to the stadium. However, anyone could be robbed, raped, killed, you name it, and at least in theory, each person has an equal opportunity to turn to the police and courts.

This is straying from the topic, but a pure libertarian perspective doesn't preclude the concept of taxation. Keep them purely voluntary, and they're not at all anathema to a "free" society: you don't have to pay them, meaning the state won't do anything if a crime is committed against you, your house catches fire, etc. The most fair tax is levied equally on everyone, i.e. a head tax.

Well I don't think what the ref did was right... but to the best of my knowledge what he did was:
1) purposely mess up at his job
2) tell his mob buddies who is reffing games ahead of time (despite probably having signed something with the NBA saying he wouldn't do this)

And I'm trying to look at this as if it were done at a different type of job.

Aren't both basically just "breach of contract" or something similar? And in other jobs wouldn't this be something that the employer would have to sue for in civil court?

And as long as the NBA is the topic....

Damn I. Thomas.

And damn those who do not damn him.

And damn those who do not damn those who do not damn him....

He was a good guy. I won a lot of money on his calls esp. those in the 4th quarter to cover the spread.

Just great, Von Bek, now you have me up to damning those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn those who didn't damn him, and I'm not even finished damning! DAMN!!! And damn you, and damn anyone who doesn't damn you...oh, damn!

:D

Well, E4, breach of contract can be as simple as unintentionally but still not fulfilling your part, but that's only part of this case since intent is very important. Donaghy's actions were willfully manipulative and deceptive, so I have no problem with there being criminal as well as civil penalties.

hmmm.... you do have me thinking here, Perry.

I'm just vigilant not to let people start thinking the NBA is any more special than any other regular private corporation.

Fine.. kids like it and some of us grew up watching it... but it's still just a private, profit-driven enterprise just like any other.

I don't know... if I work for Six Flags as a high level exec and sign an confidentiality agreement regarding some top-level new ideas, then ignore this contract and sell the ideas to Disneyland, would this be criminal, too? not rhetorical... but it's the most similar analogy I could think up...

I just don't like how people think sports are somehow "quasi-public" and the entire public has a right to get involved in what should be private businesses... freakin McCain, dragging in MLB players!!! How much $$ did that cost per hour just to handle what should be a drug case between a company and its employees?

I certainly concur on the nature of businesses as private entities, and that they're no more special than anyone else. The Senate hearings are a joke -- where does the Constitution give Congress such authority? Clearly, it doesn't. And I don't believe any private entity (individual, group or company) should be "more protected" than others. Let whatever protection the NBA receives be the same that anyone can expect. "Rule of law," contrary to popular belief, does not mean or involve enforcing the law no matter what. It means that the law is applied equally to all.

Intent is a large part of your example, like with Donaghy. If the exec had dreamed up the idea on his own and kept it to himself, then resigned and sold it to Disney, that would be legal, as there was no intent to do wrong (criminal or civil). But if he had entered into a contract and then sold something in violation of the agreement, then depending on the circumstances, it can be punished not just in civil court, but with criminal penalties. So it comes down to just how scummy you think Donaghy is and acted.