Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayuela | Hacker News Reader

Hutchins was busted for committing bank fraud. Him doing one good thing does not absolve him of having committed another crime...he's still a criminal. Rather than protest him being arrested we should advocate for him getting a reduced sentence for having at least done some good.

View on HN

> getting a reduced sentence for having at least done some good.

It seems like this is exactly what happened:

> On 26 July, 2019, Hutchins was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release.

Judges comments are included in this short documentary https://youtu.be/vveLaA-z3-o (from 21:26)

Seems like the system works far more frequently than we generally give it credit for.

You mean because it worked this one time?

Shouldn’t the system be set up to reward the good thing more than the bad thing when possible? If someone is in a position of power from doing bad things, how could you expect them to stop of their own volition?

A system that rewards the morally 'right' behavior seems ripe for abuse. Should we not set the expectation that one should be 'good' as the base of our society contract?

> how could you expect them to stop of their own volition?

The threat of punishment ...?

Your system encourage doing bad things when you are in a position of doing good things.

If I discover a cure for cancer might as well rob a bank and kill my noisy neighbor just before publishing because I'll be pardoned

> The threat of punishment ...?

if this is the only reason not to harm others, then you'll probably look for (and likely find) a way to harm others and avoid punishment.

Punishment is pointless because anyone who would be deterred by punishment would also be able to avoid punishment. Right.

Or make it part of a plea deal

In a sense, it did. That was taken into consideration at his sentencing. From his Wiki [1]:

  Hutchins was sentenced to time served
  and one year of supervised release.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hutchins

One problem with rewarding an action is that humans are very good at gaming rules. For example, let's say I get X for donating to charity. I can for example setup my own charity, donate to it, pay myself all its income as salary and then just collect lot's of X.

The US tax system is a perfect example of this I'd say.

To be clear, that specific example doesn't work at all, because salaried income from a non-profit is still fully taxable.

Not really any benefit from that

But the charity you setup would shelter your assets better than any prenup or other asset planning (or lack thereof) when you divorce your spouse

I am not a lawyer but I'm guessing a judge would look pretty badly on doing this too obviously.

One of the most useful monetary goals in life is being able to afford US federal appeal's court. It's the only part of the system where arbiters of the law actually begin to analyze the law. There is no dog and pony show for jurors there, no instructions that a prosecutor can tell the judges and sway them.

So it wouldn't matter what a single judge thought in lower court, if you were compliant.

That logic doesn't make sense. Everyone has the potential to do something bad. If you have a concealed carry firearm with you, should you get rewarded for not shooting someone on a particular day?

the analogy is more like you had a concealed firearm with you and you shot a terrorist.

although personally I think time served and probation seems about right.

In the UK we stop terrorists with Narwhal tusks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/30/narwhal-tusk...

What's more interesting on the "good deed - bad deed" ometer is

> Among those who pinned down the attacker was James Ford, 42, who is also thought to have tried to save the life of a woman who had been stabbed. Ford was jailed for life in 2004 for the murder of 21-year-old Amanda Champion.

One good deed is not enough to absolve, but one bad deed is enough to condemn.

This man wasn't exactly jailed for jaywalking [1].

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/3659523.stm

I was simply stating a truism, not complaining about it..

The terrorist attacked a conference on rehabilitating offenders so there were probably a few more "bad boys" there too.

The proper analog is more like you carry a concealed firearm which you used to shoot an innocent person but then later used it to shoot a terrorist.

Can I steal a purse if I read to children at the library?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com