Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs.

EDIT: As comments point out, it is arguable that the crimes in question are violent because they directly jeopardized people's health.

View on HN

> non-violent crimes

I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes.

> restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage

Under what penalty?

> free person with a job can pay back their debt to society

Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.

Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud

She was not convicted on any charges about falsified medical results. She was only convicted on defrauding investors

Yes I know, I don't necessarily agree with the charges either, the falsified medical results is clearly the worst part for me.

I actually think it’s worst. One can be a problem of anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face, the other is a long term thought calculated full aware of consequences and with no care for the other. It also usually results in several persons being impacted.

For instance Bayer knowing that their products were contaminated with HIV still chose to sell them. Monsanto with well all their stuff. Corporate crime is really crazier in my opinions. It’s armies of lawyers and businesses men, engineers and stuff having no problem for harm. It’s just less direct than a punch on the face.

Disclaimer: violence is still bad to horrible nonetheless.

> anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face

This merits the consideration of jail time. Nobody said automatic jail for all violence—the facts and circumstances may merit mandated therapy, for instance. But if someone refuses and keeps popping off punches, yes, the isolation prerogative of jail time takes hold.

You are right. It’s just interesting how cold thinking for crime in the corporate world can be just a big fine (even with thousands if not millions of people health are impacted and they all knew about it) but if you someone lose it on someone else it’s jail time. Again doesn’t mean he/she shouldn’t go to jail but where is any real balance with corporate crime and the free pass with money drops?

People always seem to be more forgiving of non violent crimes, but just have your house broken into whist you’re asleep with you kids in the house and it can seriously mess you up. It’s such a massive violation and you’ll struggle to sleep in that house again. I’d take a punch in the face any day of the week.

SBF and Bernie Madoff sure would like that approach.

I 100% agree. I hate to bring it up in the context of a criminal that is already priveleged and insulated from so much of the unfairness of the criminal justice system, but almost all non-violent crime should be handled in non-prison ways. Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years?

Of course, it's legitimately hard for politicians to signal to voters that they take this stuff seriously without proposing longer and longer prison sentences for things that worry voters, which are usually crimes that "other people" do: high dollar white collar crime, drug dealing, etc.

> Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years?

Anyone who needs to trust their blood test results. If faking such results lands you in jail, that makes me trust the results and I can make medically relevant decisions based on them.

idk, corporations shell out a ton of money in fines for crimes they re-commit later on.

There's an argument that holmes would learn her lesson with a ~2yr sentence as opposed to an 11yr sentence. But I'm unconvinced that a 0yr sentence paid for by investor funds would prevent future crime.

It's like kids, they think you're joking about a penalty until you actual turn the car around once.

I think most people would rather have a proper beating. Than having someone steal their entire life savings.

How would you rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail?

> rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail

Government has a monopoly on violence. This is a founding theory of why we have states. Furthermore, violence causes damage money can’t fix. Most non-violent crimes’ damages can be dollarised within margin.

Don't see how government's monopoly on legal violence is relevant here.

Assuming bad faith by the manufacturer, how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient ?

> how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient

I don’t personally believe jail should be limited to violent acts for this reason. (My exceptions being corruption and fraud.)

Well OK, how about a case where a convicted fraudster is unable to pay the financial penalty that was imposed on them?

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant people shouldn’t go to jail unless it’s violence, corruption or fraud. Then jail time should be on the table. (But never mandatory.)

What about receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc? There are enough ethically flexible people out there and if you remove the major deterrent from doing these societally bad but nonviolent things I think occurrences of them would all increase a decent amount.

> receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc

Campaign finance violations seem clear cut corruption. (Again, not mandatory jail sentencing. But jail is on the table.)

Perjury and contempt obviously need the capacity to put someone in jail. I resolve the moral discrepancy with their short durations. Theft is the elephant in the room for this framework, and I don't have a good answer for it.

> In 2011, Junker admitted to all of this when he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy. Specifically, he acknowledged conspiring to solicit political campaign contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees and to later reimburse those employees in the guise of employee bonuses. (https://rollcall.com/2014/04/08/do-campaign-finance-violatio...)

There are campaign finance violations that I would not consider corruption in the quid-pro-quo sense but are still illegal. I am sympathetic to your line of reasoning though I think the current sentencing guidelines are by and large fair. I would like to see less emphasis on "intended loss" and more rewards for making victims whole.

Willful negligence resulting in death arguably is violence. It becomes obvious when the device is not a blood test but say firing a gun in the air without regard to where the bullet will land. Willfully misrepresenting medical testing is firing a gun in the air without regard to where it goes; it is totally unreasonable to believe the outcome will be anything but violent.

I think that the taking away of personal freedom is "democratic" in the sense that it is painful for rich and poor. Not so for financial penalties.

Consider a "fake it till you make it" company that produces medical equipment. During the the "fake it" phase some people suffered life changing damage directly related to the company's equipment. The damaged is quantified and the company pays up without breaking a (financial) sweat.

What would you like her to do instead of jail time in this instance?

In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money.

I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.

Jail and paying money are not the only two deterrents available.

What were you thinking off? Surely no corporal punishment?

House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.

Any time I've ever heard fines used in the context of a business, it's never paying back the money. It's paying back a fraction of the money. And usually it's to the government, not to the people harmed.

Mandatory sentence reductions for milestones like 50%, 75%, 100% of ordered restitution/forfeiture would almost certainly incentivize repayment. Right now the federal government collects 7% of what they are owned from criminal defendants, see https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/d... (page 2). It has been proven that white collar criminals are typically the more calculating type and that they weigh the risks of getting caught so if there is a good reason to preserve at least some of the money they fraudulently obtain instead of spending it all on luxury goods they will likely do so. It's very difficult to argue that the current system is effective when there are people who caused bank failures through million dollar frauds getting 7-8 years in prison and $100 a month restitution payment plans. Right now your "intended loss" (not actual loss) is all that matters for the purpose of sentencing guidelines calculation - for instance if you submit a fraudulent loan application for $50k and don't get it (or get it but pay it back) you're just as bad as the guy who got it and spent it at all.

Freedoms can be restricted in many ways that don't involve locking someone in a cage and covering their living expenses.

Completely agree. I'm not sure who benefits from locking people in cages when their ability to roam free doesn't endanger anyone's safety. Ban her from owning equity in any business if you need to avoid repeat offenses.

If the purpose is retribution or deterrence there are so many cheaper and less cruel ways to achieve those ends than taking decades of life and handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prison industrial complex: caning, banishment, compulsory face tattoos of shame, whatever. The only reason we have prison sentences for crimes like this (along with most property and drug crimes) is so we can torture people without having to look at it directly. I wonder what society would be like if juries had to personally flog each person they sentence, or execute them at the date of (life_expectancy-sentence_years). The way we deal with crime in America today is sanitized barbarism, but if you peel back any layer of the justice system it's pretty easy to see it for what it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com