I just noticed this case that I thought presented an interesting take on individual culpability. If I understand the case properly, Butler sold people high risk subprime mortgages, claiming they were low-risk student loan backed (and I think we all realize how hard those are to default on). The interesting thing comes during sentencing - in giving Butler a below guideline sentence, Judge Weinstein noted that “The court imposed a non-guideline sentence, taking into account the defendant’s personal situation and characteristics and the circumstances of the financial industry in which he worked,” an industry with a "pernicious and pervasive culture of corruption" and "beset by avarice". While I understand the sentiment, it seems strange to reduce an individual's guilt because an entire system has played outside the bounds - particularly since he was actively defrauding people. Is this diffusing culpability throughout the system? Or claiming that if the bubble never burst, his fraud wouldn't have been 'that bad'?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/the-message-in-a-crooked-brokers-reduced-sentence/19328974/?icid=main|aim|dl3|link5|http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/the-message-in-a-crooked-brokers-reduced-sentence/19328974/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=ao3g1KEa21x4

-- StephenSevero - 01 Feb 2010