What is it with high profile, white collar crooks? As soon as they're caught with the hand in the till, the media legions swing to their defence.
Rivkin scored sympathetic publicity on the ABC's 'Australian Story.' Now Rodney Adler's getting the same treatment in today's Sun Herald.
At least it's not being funded by the public purse.
Mike Carlton yesterday predicted the line that would be pushed during Adler's sentencing hearings ....
Connoisseurs of these things will be looking forward to Rodney's appearance in court for sentencing. If the usual script is followed, the judge will hear lawyerly psalms about his previous good character, his exemplary work for charity, his legendary kindness to small kittens and old ladies, etc.The disgrace is punishment enough, your honour. The fall from society, the ostracism from the world of business a condign penalty itself. And the shame visited upon the family. And, of course, there is m'client's remorse and repentance. What purpose could be served by sending this unfortunate man to jail?
What Carlton failed to mention was that the softening-up process starts well before the court hearing. The Sun Herald article would bring tears to your eyes ...
"It's a terrible burden on his wife and the kids ...... his wife has had to give up her charity work ..... his marriage has been stressed by the ordeal ...... he's been through four years of hell .... etc .... etc."
All crime effects the lives of close relatives of the perpetrators. It doesn't prevent the less well off criminals from going to gaol, and should have no bearing on Adler's sentence. The big difference for Adler's ilk is that they invariably have the cash to maintain the lifestyle when they emerge.
We can only hope that the judge is too busy on Sundays to read the papers.
I actually thought the Australian Story article on Rivkin was aimed much more towards the negative side effects of his ridiculous behaviours on his family.
The 'Australian Story' program was screened around the time when the courts were investigating some other Rivkin business dealings.
It certainly dealt with the effect of his behaviour had on his family. But I get suspicious when the show had his doctor talking openly about his condition, something that wouldn't happen without Rivkin's consent. Why would he agree to that? Not to give the impression that his questionable behaviour was not his fault? Or to soften up the public that he should be treated leniently? Surely not!