Is your point that he wasn't a criminal, but had evidence and charges trumped because of his resistance? Or is your point that everyone that powerful has done something illegal, and those that are caught are "painted as scum" because of unrelated actions?

In one case, we have a socially decent person (fuck "law abiding", in this context) who is wronged by "justice".

In the other case, we have someone who got away with something wrong, only to be nailed for something else.

One person is a "solid citizen" (placed in quotes because, again, who knows what the fuck that means).

The other is Al Capone.

I don't know if I'm OK with going after Capone for reasons-unrelated-to-the-real-reason (taxes versus criminal conspiracy), but I think it's important to acknowledge the difference.

Everyone has done something which is technically illegal or could be painted in a bad light. This is an old truth best stated by Richelieu - If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I'll find something in them which will see him hang.

Something like insider trading is a particularly grey area, because directors trade all the time with more knowledge than the public (how could they not), and leaks of information happen all the time without punishment. I don't know all the details of this particular case, but I'd be skeptical of taking the conviction at face value, given the willingness of some branches of the US government to openly lie to the public, distort the truth, bypass or neuter the judicial branch, and vindictively punish and vilify those who refuse to cooperate in illegality or blow the whistle on their activities.

More generally, whether you take a conviction as a proof of moral turpitude relates to how much faith you have that the justice system in a given country is operating in a just, transparent and fair manner. If you don't have that faith, a criminal conviction means nothing in moral terms.

Nacchio isn't accused of one of those "transporting the wrong species of muskmelon across state lines" crimes. He was convicted of defrauding his own shareholders out of many many millions of dollars. It's worth adding that the conviction happened during a famous wave of prosecutions of similar crimes at Worldcom, Anderson, Enron, &c.

If you're only going after Al Capone because you can't get him for other crimes and other tax evaders go free that's still selective enforcement.

Whether something is evil "selective enforcement" or good "prosecutorial discretion" really does seem to depend on the optics of the case, doesn't it?

Definitely, there is no such thing as an objective truth when it comes to things such as these. But it is possible to reduce the chances of abuse of selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion by passing laws that are as transparent as possible and by having little to no career effects as a result of such selective enforcement if and when they take place.

Otherwise you make a law for Al Capone and you end up prosecuting Aaron Swartz.

>In one case, we have a socially decent person (fuck "law abiding", in this context) who is wronged by "justice". In the other case, we have someone who got away with something wrong, only to be nailed for something else. One person is a "solid citizen" (placed in quotes because, again, who knows what the fuck that means). The other is Al Capone.

No, if "everyone that powerful has done something illegal" then the other is what we call a scape-goat.

Al Capone was in criminal business through and through, not someone who had a legit business and also "had done something illegal", much less something that "everybody that powerful" had also done.

Intent matters too. Catching Al Capone for tax evasion was meant to punish him for his larger serious crimes. Whereas in this situation (if it's as described), the caught the guy for "insider trading" to punish him for something else he did RIGHT.