How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.
Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
Then write the law so that the penalty can never possibly be worth the cost.
Jail is downright inhumane, and the only reason we should tolerate it is the case when the person is violent and there is good reason to believe that in the absence of imprisonment they will be a danger to others. And they should remain in jail only as long as the threat of danger remains credible.
That'd acceptable if at least the following conditions hold:
a. First and foremost, the fraudster should be ashamed publicly and in a very visible manner on social media, television/radio and newspaper. e.g. The fraudster be made to wear clothes that are deemed filthy and be made to hold a placard stating "I repeat that I am a fraudster and I don't deserve to be a citizen of this nation. I also state that my relatives and my friends and my associates can be fraudsters themselves because they liked to hang out with me. They are free to disassociate themselves from me but if they continue to associate with me you know that they are also fraudsters." This video and news should be sent to all people who are associated with the fraudster.
b. the fine should be such that all assets/money belonging to the fraudster should be confiscated and along with all the assets of the relatives that have been linked to the fraudster's money; (it's very easy to game the system otherwise). The relatives should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted.
c. The fraudster should be banned from doing any financial sector job; only physical labour jobs should be allowed.
d. The fraudster should not be allowed to leave the country
e. All the money the fraudster has spent on the legal battle (fee of the attorney) should also be confiscated from the attorneys (this is also important, as the attorneys will be forced to act more ethically not because they are honest but just because of the risk involved). I know they will find other ways to get rewarded but at least those will not be as straight forward. The attorneys also should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted.
f. Any money not recovered from the fraudster should automatically be treated as loan-default and the fraudster be prosecuted for default in addition to the fraud charges and the applicable legal process be initiated.
In short, even the filthy rich fraudsters [1] should not be able to game the system. The punishment should be such a deterrent that even the filthy rich fraudsters should shiver at the thought of it.
>>Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
But they are still causing irreparable harm to the societal fabric and other people will fast lose their faith the legal system if the filthy rich fraudsters don't get punished in a big way.
[1] anyone controlling the big banks and big corporations like Goldman Sachs.
Why would anyone be ashamed about not paying taxes? That's hardly a shameful thing to do.
>b
That's just ridiculous.
>c
And how do you propose that'd be implemented?
>d
Why?
>e
So those suspected of tax fraud do not deserve legal representation?
What you're describing here sounds like something fit for DPRK, not a civilized country.
I am not for turning USA into a brutal and unjust communist country (e.g. DPRK).
All I am saying is the current laws are such that the financial fraudsters generally get only a slap on the wrist and they are let free.
This is going to cause social unrest (e.g. the occupy movement) in the USA and mostly socialists/communists will be (are) going to take advantage of it to topple the current free market based democracy. If USA wants to save, apart from heavy taxes on the top dirty-rich it should also implement severe and visible punishments for financial fraudsters.
Read this news [1] to know how the dirty-rich are gaming the system and what's wrong with shaming them in public? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843477
Do you have any statistics to support this? Do you, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, believe that custodial sentences lower crime and recidivism rates?
>Read this news [1] to know how the dirty-rich are gaming the system [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843477
AFAIK the vast majority of people "exposed" in the panama papers are not violating any laws. Perhaps the real solution is for governments to consider more competitive tax codes?
>and what's wrong with shaming them in public?
Nothing, it's just not something most people would be particularly ashamed of.
I guess, you have forgotten the Volkswagen fraud, the Goldman Sachs fraud and the Lehman brother, and so on.
In case of the Volkswagen criminal offense plus fraud, the CEO was awarded hundreds of millions of USD as a reward instead of any punishment. In this case, a punishment like the one mentioned above should be handed over to all guilty including the CEO, the top management and the large shareholders too. They should be publicly ashamed and then stripped of all their money and be allowed to work only menial labour.
The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.
The world outside of the US does not consist of "overcrowded hell-holes"
>The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.
Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.
I get the idea that to live, you will probably need the assistance of your government at one point or another. And that the government needs money. So taxes.
But saying it was something you could chose ? Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?
Naturally one doesn't get to choose their initial nationality.
At some point, though, you (may) have the option to emigrate elsewhere, and assume another nationality, and thus assume that other nationality's perks and burdens.
> Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? > Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?
Depends on how much you're willing to give up. For instance, you can liquidate all of your assets and, say, start living on a boat in international waters. Or if you're willing to ilve on a sovereign country's land, just move into a forest where no one will ever find you. Depending on freedom-to-roam laws, that may even be reasonably legal.
I don't understand the (apparently popular) argument that serious criminal penalties should only be handed out for direct physical violence. Look at all the horrible shit that happened during the housing collapse--taking someone's home away under false pretenses (and under threat of police violence!) is just as destructive as if you'd burned it down while they were away.
There is so much admiration for the covert mass surveillance that Edward Snowden uncovered and exposed to the world yet we seem to not blink an eye at the blatant and overt mass surveillance of private financial transactions - where we are legally required to totally surrender our financial privacy to the government - that has to be imposed on people so that there can even be an income tax.
Refusing to hand over your private income is totally incomparable to fraud. I honestly have trouble understanding how people can make these kinds of arguments.