Hacker News Reader

If you want to see it that way, doesn’t that mean “maybe it’s better” if fraudsters accumulate wealth with impunity?

Perhaps we should incentivize crime and fraud, since the victims are by definition less fit, and the attackers are by definition more fit?

I am not sure I care for this philosophy. It is timely though, I’ll give you that.

View on HN

> doesn’t that mean “maybe it’s better” if fraudsters accumulate wealth with impunity?

It’s an argument against using public resources to pursue him. The victims could sue him for money damages, and in the process arrange the facts such that a prosecutor can jump off them versus launching an independent probe.

So, justice should be a privilege only to those who can afford lawyers?

The resources of the justice system are despairingly finite I assure you. People get away with worse crimes than financial scams.

Is anyone prosecuted for crimes less bad than these financial crimes? That seems like a better test than whether anyone gets away with worse.

So who becomes the arbiter of which victims are "worthwhile" to try to seek justice for and which get thrown to the wolves? Do you think going down this path is likely to end up in a good place?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com