Critics Respond to Lori Loughlin’s Prison Sentence Following Initial 20-Year Predictions
Former Full House and When Call the Heart star Lori Loughlin and husband Mossimo Giannulli were two of the many high-profile individuals involved in the recent college admission scandal.
While news surrounding Felicity Huffman began to die down after she was released from prison on the eleventh day of her fourteen-day sentence, attention remained fixated on Loughlin and Giannulli, as they went through the court system.
While the charge for their crimes normally carries up to $250,000 in fines and up to 20 years in prison, it looks like those initial predictions were a bit unrealistic, or a bit too hopeful, depending on who you ask. Many thought that the Feds and the courts would make an example out of the couple — use the duo to prove that those with money and power cannot escape punishment for criminal acts.
Recent news reports surrounding Loughlin indicate the exact opposite, suggesting that Lori Loughlin has agreed to spend two months in jail. Her husband Giannulli is set to serve five months, according to Q13Fox. So, how was the presumed sentence reduced? As Q13 Fox notes, prosecutors agreed to dismiss charges of money laundering and federal programs bribery, which were added after the case was filed. Considering these charges carry the heftier sentences, both Loughlin and Giannulli will serve less time than initially expected; they are pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. Many critics took to Twitter to explain that the two have gotten off too easy.
Critics argue that Loughlin’s sentence is proof of privilege at play
If you take to Twitter, there seems to be a general consensus surrounding Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli’s sentencing: many agree that the courts let them off easy, but are not surprised by the results.
Reporters and news outlets took to Twitter to share the news, and many individuals had their own opinions to share. While some noted that a two-month prison sentence is a “cakewalk,” others complained that Lori Loughin simply wasted taxpayers’ money by drawing out the process, while Felicity Huffman kept things quick and simple.
Others were quick to note that the individuals’ top-tier economic status and celebrity presence once again proved that the law does not punish equally, but rather in a plutocratic fashion. One critic took to Twitter wondering who Lori Loughin paid to only get a two-month prison sentence, noting that the courts failed to “make an example out of her.”
In the end, many citizens were hoping that the rich and powerful involved in this situation would be punished as anyone else would be. Yet, following the announcement that Loughlin and Giannulli would serve a two-month and five-month prison sentence (after initial 20-year predictions), many argued that the justice system has and always will be flawed, leaning in favor of those with wealth and connections in high places.
