Perhaps you are familiar with Blackstone’s ratio, the principle that that “it is better ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. Other great minds have uttered similar statements and it is consecrated in our culture as a fundamental truth. Guilty men can go free and might harm again (OJ Simpson springs to mind) but an innocent man in prison is an atrocity that as a culture and a civilized people, we can not tolerate.
It was Blackstone’s ratio that I thought of when I saw this snippet from John Kroger’s book, Convictions:
Lea Fastow wouldn’t have had to go to prison if her husband had talked. The mind reels.
Marriage is a sacred institution but no union can make one’s punishment or rewards transferable. In other words, just because we are married, we are still individuals. Lea’s guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Andy Fastow, who had to consider his own well-being. And likewise, Andy should not have been in the position of choosing between a longer sentence for himself vs. a shorter sentence for his wife.
This statement by John Kroger is nothing less than inhuman.
Lea Fastow was a mother with two young children. The only thing she did was sign a tax return. For the government to take a mother from her children as punishment for her husband not talking – regardless of her innocence, as Kroger concedes here – is truly monstrous. If they will do this, they will do anything.
I find it fascinating that the title of Kroger’s book is Convictions. I realize the double meaning – a firm belief and a formal declaration of guilt. But Kroger doesn’t spend any time in the book examining what his convictions are. Indeed, he only relishes the discussion of sending people to prison, and the various machinations to get them there. Based on hundreds of interviews, and his own words, I believe John Kroger is a sociopath and a tyrant as evil as Pol Pot, dressed up like a law professor. He thirsts for power, specifically generated by others’ defeat.
The men he’s attacked are strong, and they’ve managed to survive. But an innocent mother taken from her children? How could he be so cruel?
Thank you for your blog and for your contributions to an interesting dialogue. However, I am perplexed by your convictions about Lea Fastow, especially it seems, your belief that she is devoid of any wrong doings:
“Lea Fastow was a mother with two young children. The only thing she did was sign a tax return.”
Fastow was a high-powered, educated, hard-working woman, with a keen business acumen. She had an MBA from Northwestern, and decades of experience. How can you infer that she is an innocent victim in this scenario? Surely someone with her credentials is not blind to the boundaries of tax law? Surely someone of her caliber can properly add income instead of blatantly failing to declare it?
The way you make her sound is almost an insult to her, as though she were some idle housewife, completely unaware of her husband’s earnings, innocently signing a tax return without so much as questioning the content. Do you really believe this is plausible? Do you really think she would have failed to declare this income if it hadn’t been earned off-the-books, i.e., by committing insider trading, money laundering, and fraud? And if so, what has led you to draw this conclusion? Lea Fastow herself regretted what she called “errors in judgment.”
The government didn’t “take her away from her children” in order to punish her husband. They sent her to prison on her own misdemeanor conviction (though arguably, she committed a felony). Andy Fastow refused a plea bargain that would have spared her an indictment. That was simply a negotiation tactic on the part of the prosecution, not an absolution of her guilt. In any case, Andy Fastow turned it down!
Obviously, I don’t have all the information and I don’t think it’s wise to take mothers away from their children. But how do you propose that we have a functional justice system when criminals are absolved of their crimes on account of their family status? And even if all she did was “sign a tax return,” how do you provide justice to the employees of Enron who lost everything, all so the Fastows could get away with millions on top of millions? I personally know people who worked at Enron more than 20 years that lost their pensions.
Honestly, I’m curious to see how you might make these acts defensible.
Thank you for your blog and for your contributions to an interesting dialogue. However, I am perplexed by your convictions about Lea Fastow, especially it seems, your belief that she is devoid of any wrong doings:
“Lea Fastow was a mother with two young children. The only thing she did was sign a tax return.”
Fastow was a high-powered, educated, hard-working woman, with a keen business acumen. She had an MBA from Northwestern, and decades of experience. How can you infer that she is an innocent victim in this scenario? Surely someone with her credentials is not blind to the boundaries of tax law? Surely someone of her caliber can properly add income instead of blatantly failing to declare it? She was a finance expert for Pete’s sake!
The way you make her sound is almost an insult to her, as though she were some idle housewife, completely unaware of her husband’s earnings, innocently signing a tax return without so much as questioning the content. Do you really believe this is plausible? Do you really think she would have failed to declare this income if it hadn’t been earned off-the-books, i.e., by committing insider trading, money laundering, and fraud? And if so, what has led you to draw this conclusion? Lea Fastow herself regretted what she called “errors in judgment.”
The government didn’t “take her away from her children” in order to punish her husband. They sent her to prison on her own misdemeanor conviction (though arguably, she committed a felony). Andy Fastow refused a plea bargain that would have spared her an indictment. That was simply a negotiation tactic on the part of the prosecution, not an absolution of her guilt. In any case, Andy Fastow turned it down!
Obviously, I don’t have all the information and I don’t think it’s wise to take mothers away from their children. But how do you propose that we have a functional justice system when criminals are absolved of their crimes on account of their family status? And even if all she did was “sign a tax return,” how do you provide justice to the employees of Enron who lost everything, all so the Fastows could get away with millions on top of millions? I personally know people who worked at Enron more than 20 years that lost their pensions.
Honestly, I’m curious to see how you might make these acts defensible.
Hi Laura, thanks for your comment. I can’t answer this now (gotta earn Prada money) but I’ll get to it tonight, I promise.
Hi Laura,
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
You said:
The way you make her sound is almost an insult to her, as though she were some idle housewife, completely unaware of her husband’s earnings, innocently signing a tax return without so much as questioning the content. Do you really believe this is plausible?
Maybe. I think it is entirely possible that she didn’t use her MBA at home.
Do you really think she would have failed to declare this income if it hadn’t been earned off-the-books, i.e., by committing insider trading, money laundering, and fraud?
Whoa, whoa, wait a second. “Off the books” means something very specific, and in accounting it doesn’t mean illegal or procured by “insider trading, money laundering and fraud.” And incidentally he didn’t plead guilty to insider trading or money laundering.
But to answer your question, I don’t know. I’ve wrestled with the Andy Fastow question for a long time, trying to figure out who he really is and what he’s all about. For a long time, I thought he was infinitely complex and mysterious with many mirrored rooms inside him. Then one of his friends said, “Cara, you’ve got to get over this idea that Fastow was anything more than a crook.” So I’m trying to reconcile it all even now. I have no idea if he would tell his wife that he was stealing money. I know for sure he didn’t tell Jeff Skilling. So maybe he didn’t.
And to be honest, I think if I were in Lea’s situation, maybe prying into my husband’s income wouldn’t be the best use of my time.
And if so, what has led you to draw this conclusion? Lea Fastow herself regretted what she called “errors in judgment.”
Yes, they all say things like that when they’re being sentenced. It’s a ridiculous little Kabuki theatre when they have to grovel like penitents seeking redemption even when they know deep in their bones they’re innocent. It is ironic but I never trust anything anyone says at their sentencing – not even my friends, not even the man I love.
The government didn’t “take her away from her children” in order to punish her husband.
Do you allow that this is even a possibility? My contention is that the government did exactly that. They were blooodthirsty, they wanted Lay and Skilling and they were going to destroy whoever they had to in order to accomplish that goal.
They sent her to prison on her own misdemeanor conviction (though arguably, she committed a felony).
It was a plea deal, not a jury conviction. And you’ve actually come to the thrust of my issue with Lea Fastow.
John Kroger says in his book that people like Lea Fastow would rarely be prosecuted. And the statistics bear that out. According to the IRS, less than half of tax related investigations make it to sentencing (yet about 80% are recommended for prosecution.)
My theory is that if her name had been anything other than Fastow, she’d never have gone through the turmoil she endured. She’d never have been investigated and she’d never have been sent to prison.
Andy Fastow refused a plea bargain that would have spared her an indictment. That was simply a negotiation tactic on the part of the prosecution, not an absolution of her guilt. In any case, Andy Fastow turned it down!
That looks on the surface like an asshole move, but what bothers me about it is that the government tied his wife to his crimes at all. They were trying to make Andy talk and to do that they used his wife. If they wanted to go after her, they should have done so on the merits of her case. If she were really a dangerous criminal, the DOJ should not have offered her and Andy a deal at all.
Obviously, I don’t have all the information and I don’t think it’s wise to take mothers away from their children. But how do you propose that we have a functional justice system when criminals are absolved of their crimes on account of their family status?
Obviously I don’t think that being a mother or wife should make you un-indictable. But in the Enron case, the prosecutors really had no reason to go after Lea; they did it because they wanted Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay. That doesn’t seem right to me. The DOJ divides and conquers; it’s a good, old-fashioned strategy because it works. But in the case of Lea Fastow, they did in fact take a mother away from her young children because of an alleged crime that would never have been prosecuted if she wasn’t Lea.
And even if all she did was “sign a tax return,” how do you provide justice to the employees of Enron who lost everything, all so the Fastows could get away with millions on top of millions? I personally know people who worked at Enron more than 20 years that lost their pensions.
I’m sorry you have known people who lost money. That is truly awful and I’m sorry.
Before I answer your question, I have a question of my own: why didn’t your friends divest their assets?
To answer your question, I am not sure that the victims of Enron deserve more “justice” than they got. Most Enron employees were compensated to over 100% of their loss within eight years of the collapse. That’s not bad. The SEC, DOJ and various other plaintiffs have sued Enron to the bones – that’s your justice. There is nothing left.
Andy’s theft did not bankrupt the company. He was one variable out of many that changed the market dynamics so that a run on the bank was inevitable. I don’t think the Fastows should get to keep their stolen millions (they didn’t, by the way.)
And I’ll point out that Andy’s imprisonment, and Lea’s, and everyone else’s for that matter, are supposed to be justice. But the fact that you’re wondering where the justice is proves my point: white collar criminals do not belong in prison. They can’t return your money in prison, and they’re just costing you more money to lock them up.
Again, I’m sorry your friends lost money. But their justice has been served.