Maybe I'm a big old softie, but it seems to me that locking somebody up in a cell for 100 years for (non-violently) stealing money is draconian..
There was just a story out about a person taking their life after a chatbot told them to. We wouldn't/shouldn't be charging the creators of that chatbot should we?
And I agree, the "100 years" is sensational, but still, to be locked up for the remainder of your natural life over stealing money just seems wrong to me. Everyone makes mistakes.
People feel significantly more emotional distress from losing money (especially from stealing) than not getting / earning it.
The amount of harm caused by these people is inconceivable.
There isn't any way to be "fair" in sentencing, because it's hard to compare harms. This guy stole a lot of money, and therefore "deserves" a lot of prison time -- to the degree that that means anything at all, and I'm not sure it does.
Much of it seems to be inspired by some sort of karmic sense of balancing the books. People want to see punishment, and have decided that "keeping him living in an unpleasant, lonely place" is a retribution that is cruel enough but not too cruel.
We could completely reconsider the idea of what "punishment" is all about, but I don't know if any of the alternatives are really all that much better. There's no way this guy could ever really make restitution. I doubt there's a decent way to put him to "work", if his main life skill is about ripping people off. Nobody should ever trust him again, even if we put a bunch of effort into instilling some kind of moral code.
So... I don't like any of the alternatives. The crime is done and no good thing is going to come of it. Following the law is probably the least-worst option. And there's no way to change the law that would be widely agreed to be less-worse.
Clearly the impact and scale of this crime was large and far reaching, and negatively impacted society more than most murders would have. Thus from a punishment perspective, sentencing should be harsher than lesser crimes.
From a rehabilitation perspective... is the offender likely to commit a similar crime again? What harm does he possess to society going forward? In most of these kind of white collar crime cases, I'd guess the answer is "not much risk". Reputation being tarnished is enough to prevent similar scale fraud a second time. Though of course could operate through proxies/hidden channels. I'd be interested to see the recidivism rate for different types of white collar crime.
Some people believe more in punishment, some in rehabilitation. If you look at it strictly mathematically/economically... the "best" outcome for society is likely to optimize for minimizing future negative externalities... so the people who pose little future threat should get shorter sentences. And this is somewhat how it works in practice in many cases (sentencing differentials for white collar/rich vs blue collar/poor).
When your code breaks you don't blame the user. You figure out the problem was. Why did that guy want to commit this crime? Why was it possible?
As far as I'm concerned we should just let him go, or look at some kind of "restorative justice" program even though it can never begin to repay people. I see zero reason for him, or anyone, to spend time simply rotting. But they point to much bigger issues where jail is no solution at all.
I don’t think the length of the sentence materially alters the incentive structure, but there definitely needs to be repercussions for people who break the law/harm others
It's still pretty barbaric. And we know it's not much of a deterrent, since the jails are full to bursting.
I'm hardly an expert, and the experts disagree on the approach. But I think it's important to reconsider our notion that "jail" is the viable approach.
No. Just because one thing can in certain cases lead to another does not mean they are morally (or legally) equivalent.
You can say “shooting someone can in certain cases lead to them dying”. We punish based on whether or not they actually died.
>"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
>"No, you have not. But you have stolen, embezzled, defrauded and swindled without discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You have ruined businesses and destroyed jobs. When banks fail, it is seldom bankers who starve. Your actions have taken money from those who had little enough to begin with. In a myriad small ways you have hastened the deaths of many. You do not know them. You did not see them bleed. But you snatched bread from their mouths and tore clothes from their backs. For sport, Mr Lipvig. For sport. For the joy of the game.
Going Postal was not one of Terry Pratchett's stronger books, but it's a good point nevertheless.
And in this case, the others need a lot of encouragement. Crypto grift is bigger than ever.
And maybe I'm a big softie, but I feel a lot less sympathetic for someone stealing billions from retail investors (Stupid as many of them are), than I am for someone stealing hundreds of dollars from a store to feed their meth fix. This guy didn't 'need' to steal in any sense of the word.
It isn't even non-violently stealing money like breaking into your house when you are on vacation, or hacking a bank or something like that. People just willingly bought a shitcoin which then went to 0.