Holmes, Madoff etc... are all the proof that you need that the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors.
I'm not saying you're wrong in the aggregate, but can't you make a better argument? How can noting two people who went to jail for one reason be "all the proof you need"?
The context here is the rich and powerful. A reality show actor is not in that group and doesn't have those priveledges. Prosecuting someone like that does not make the powerful uncomfortable by setting a precedent so it's done all the time.
But the only time one of their in-group is sent to prison is when it hurts other rich and powerful.
There are investment fraud prosecutions literally all the time, they just get 5-10 years in prison usually, not life. They aren't on national news because few people know the scammer or the victims.
I think the OP meant more, "the only rich people".
Having enough money to have the direct line to someone important in a political party is valuable. Enough prosecutors have a mind for future ambitions and understand that some battles just aren't worth fighting.
That doesn't make for straight up immunity, but it does change the calculus enough that so long as no one else really cares about your crime, they can let it slide or negotiate it down to something trivial.
> it does change the calculus enough that so long as no one else really cares about your crime, they can let it slide
This ignores the other side of the calculus: the political and career benefits of high-profile takedowns. I don't claim this balances across the power spectrum. But it's a far cry from the dystopia OP posits.
However you put it, but this judgement proves that justice exists, and i am happy to see scammers put behind bars in the mother of democracy. USA in-spite of its gun culture still rocks in some aspects.
