By Luke Knipe
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 9, 1998

Despite the 'game,' Fife's a criminal

To the Editor:

In Friday's Wildcat, Zach Thomas' "Free Fife" column stated, in defense of Symington, that "his dealings were not improper. He was playing by the rules of the game and that game is business." This raises an important concern, and one that Thomas fails to address: Should people be allowed to break the law for the purposes of business? Apparently, Thomas thinks that they should.

Mr. Symington broke the law by filing false financial statements in order to obtain loans. While this is, unfortunately, common practice in real estate development, it is not allowable within the law. The law is that people may not lie in order to borrow money. Symington lied in order to borrow money. There's a problem with Thomas' logic. He argues that "neither Symington's conviction nor his sentence are just," and gives the following premises: "His dealings were not improper," and "he was playing by the rules of the game." Unless the "game" is an illegal one, this argument is no good. Symington broke the law. Unless you're an outlaw, the "rules of the game" must coincide with rules of the law. This is a very simple, very important point.

I am very concerned, as you can probably see why, about Thomas' concepts of justice. He thinks that it would be "just" for Symington's conviction to be overturned, because he was playing by the rules. Not, the law, mind you, but the rules.

Luke Knipe
Biochemistry Freshman