• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trivial penalties for stealing millions and ruining the lives of multiple people

3point14 said:
It is? Where is this written?
Click to expand...
Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it, and that's mine.

"Cure" would seem to me to be a much more effective goal, if it could be done. It means you won't have to spend money on incarcerating them all over again some time after you've let them out.
Click to expand...

If it could be done, perhaps, but it cannot. And I would argue that some don't deserve to be cured, anyway.

If it were possible to cure a serial killer or mass murderer, should we do that? Imagine they killed your dearest loved one, whoever that might be. Would you accept that they should then simply be allowed to go on with their life as if nothing had happened?

Why not simply execute them? Anyway, that it my own view.
 
psionl0 said:
Heh, the usual complaint is that people convicted of financial crimes (especially against the government) get longer sentences than murderers. Now it seems that this is the desired result.

The prison term seems long enough but he should also be ordered to make restitution to all those he swindled and not be able to escape the order through bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

I've sincerely never seen that.
 
Nah cause I’m not revenge oriented, I’m results oriented. It does get complicated with like recidivism and making sure you don’t incentivize sociopathic behaviour that harms others (or even just fail to incentivize trying on purpose not to practice behavior that harms others). But overall all I want is for fewer nasty things to happen to others by malice or carelessness, and when they do happen anyway, for attempts to be made at restitution, and where restitution can’t be made, for some symbolic restitution to be made instead (where simple punishment of the offender does not count as restitution).

Punishment can be part of your cultural disincentive but it has to be applied often and consistently or iirc studies show it doesn’t work very well as a disincentive. If there’s a perception that you have a good chance of getting away with it, that’s what the decision making process grabs on to as important. It doesn’t pay attention to how far above ‘some kind of normal sounding consequences’ the punishment is if you do get caught.

We’d benefit more from catching more criminals and making them all face a few consequences than from catching whales like this guy once in a blue moon and throwing the book at them.

This guy’s whole situation is just reality tv as far as its effect on society, no matter what we end up doing to him over it. The scammed who ended up in dire straits could probably use some help and it should probably largely come from him.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I've sincerely never seen that.
Click to expand...
Where I live, the most famous case was Ray Mickelberg who, in 1983, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted for buying gold from the Perth Mint with a fake cheque. (It turned out that he was framed by the police but that is another story). There was a public outrage over a sentence that was at least as steep as that which many murderers received.

WA courts frequently come under criticism for treating money crimes more seriously than crimes of violence.
 
psionl0 said:
Where I live, the most famous case was Ray Mickelberg who, in 1983, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted for buying gold from the Perth Mint with a fake cheque. (It turned out that he was framed by the police but that is another story). There was a public outrage over a sentence that was at least as steep as that which many murderers received.

WA courts frequently come under criticism for treating money crimes more seriously than crimes of violence.
Click to expand...
That's not really comparable.
 
psionl0 said:
Where I live, the most famous case was Ray Mickelberg who, in 1983, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted for buying gold from the Perth Mint with a fake cheque. (It turned out that he was framed by the police but that is another story). There was a public outrage over a sentence that was at least as steep as that which many murderers received.

WA courts frequently come under criticism for treating money crimes more seriously than crimes of violence.
Click to expand...

One case almost 40 years ago... yeah sounds like it happens all the time!
 
I keep reading about the trial of Elizabeth Holmes. She defrauded people of of 300 million dollars and is in all sorts of trouble.

Her problem, as I see it, is that she defrauded 300 million dollars from a few dozen very wealthy investors, investing millions each. Had she defrauded 300 million dollars by scamming $300 each from a million middle class people, she would not be in trouble at all, and would probably still be thought in a positive light, as someone who aimed high and pushed some boundaries.

We're like that. Its a sort of built in cultural hypocrisy.
 
crescent said:
Her problem, as I see it, is that she defrauded 300 million dollars from a few dozen very wealthy investors, investing millions each. Had she defrauded 300 million dollars by scamming $300 each from a million middle class people, she would not be in trouble at all, and would probably still be thought in a positive light
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom