Clarification...

I have been informed there was some confusion about my January 15 post. Here's the deal:

Andrew Fastow used to work for Enron, and has just pleaded guilty to some charges in connection with his cooking of Enron's books. His wife, Leah Fastow, also worked for Enron and had a smaller role in the accounting fraud, for which she has also pled guilty. Part of the plea deal is that both will serve time in prison, and there will be some hefty fines. However, the couple is trying to get assurances from their respective judges that they will not be serving their sentences at the same time, because they have two young sons. They may have the leverage to pull this off because Mr. Fastow may be able to rat out his higher-ups, specifically Ken Lay.

Jon Stewart made the best joke I have yet heard on that subject: the Fastows are trying to avoid concurrent prison terms on account of their children "...because someone has to teach them right from wrong."

My concern is that Mr. and Mrs. Fastow are receiving special treatment for three reasons:
1. They have kids
2. They have lots of money (much of it because of their illicit activities) to hire good lawyers
3. They have the goods on people that the judiciary wants even more than themselves

While I'd hate to see children suffer on account of their parents' stupidity, I'd also not want to see the parents get special treatment on account of having decided to have children. That sets a precedent disadvantaging those who have made the decision not to have children. Children should not be a "get out of jail free" card. This is a hard call: deciding between the welfare of children (inasmuch as, other than committing fraud, I have not heard anything that would characterize the Fastows as unfit parents), and the ideal that everyone (parent and nonparent alike) is equal under the law.

I have a feeling ideals will lose this round. Ideals don't have cute faces and piano recitals that they need to be driven to.