perhaps if they have a detox center at the prison he went to, because the story stated that he needed the money to pay for staying at one
Yes; I remember a thread a couple weeks ago from here about a guy who intentionally "robbed" a bank just so he could get medical treatment.
I suppose a partial argument rectifying the difference between the CEO and the bum is that the CEO committed a non-violent crime which I guess might be rectified by insurance or a government bailout of some kind (FDIC?). The bum directly threatened the life of a person; gun or mere hand in pocket, the threat remained subjectively the same to those in the bank.
Something else to consider:
There are complaints that the system is unfair. I agree. Now -- do you want good prosecutors who get criminals behind bars for as long as possible (for now, let's set aside other solutions to crime)? Or, at least,
all else being equal, do you want the prosecutor who can, on average, put defendants behind bars for the longest period of time, or the prosecutor who can put defendants behind bars for less time on average?
A second thought:
Now, assume you have just been accused of a felony. Wouldn't you want the
best lawyer you can find and afford? Now, if you were a lawyer, won't you want to be paid as much as possible for your skill? Shouldn't the CEO deserve to hire the best lawyer he can find who will get him off? Also, this country already has minimum standards (public defenders, Miranda warnings, due process, etc.), which are a lot better than many other legal systems' guarantees to individuals. If we raise the bar,
it'll also cost a lot more money.