Today I ran into an article that didn’t make much sense to me. Not that I’m particularly hard to confuse, but I’d like to think I’m reasonably adept at understanding simple allegory. At issue today is the definition of the “Robin Hood” complex:
A former bank executive who was said to have “Robin Hood” mentality has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for taking money from some accounts and repaying others, as well as pocketing some of the money for himself.
A psychologist who testified at the sentencing hearing said Mariotti had a “Robin Hood” mentality because he took money from the bank to help support bad loans he had made. In one case, he paid off a $45,000 loan, said his attorney, Ron Hamm. – [Yahoo/AP]
Ah. Uh Huh. So is this how a Robin Hood complex is defined nowadays? I might be wrong, but wasn’t the primary distinguishing characteristic of Robin Hoods antics the fact that he pretty much gave everything he stole to the poor?
Now seeing as this banker executive wasn’t exactly poor, but used the money he stole to pay down his personal debts, that sound more to me like… What’s the word…? Ah, yes. Embezzlement. If course I’m no expert.
I kinda think Robin Hood would be insulted to be compared to this guy. But if a psychologist says it’s a “Robin Hood” complex, who are we lowly peasant folk to argue…
‘Robin Hood’ banker jailed for fraud – [Yahoo/AP]