Lori A. Beer was the CIO at the time. Now at JP Morgan.
"ever again"
For good reason, modern law systems rarely issue punishments that last a lifetime. People can and do change, and something stupid (and illegal) you did 30 years ago shouldn't be held over your head today. These are rare cases for the absolutely worst crimes. For anything else, you receive a punishment, be it money or months/years in jail, and after that, you deserve a chance to live a life without ongoing punishment. Beyond knowing what you did, and remembering the punishment, which for most people is already a burden heavy enough.
Obviously fining you 5$ for stealing 100 is not gonna work.
Not to punish per se, but to prevent them from doing more harm to the public.
The solution is not harder punishments for those that are punished, but punishing more of them.
Punishing more of them is easily said, when the crime is much harder to prove than shoplifting for example. And I'm skipping the fact that the shoplifter will be represented by an overworked public defender while the exec has a team of lawyers lined up that probably are payed by the company that got richer off illegal behavior
No, it's not. We don't catch everybody guilty of petty theft, but those we do catch still don't end up in prison for life.
There was a time when we chopped their right hand off, but I'm glad those days are behind us.
(Reading many of the reactions here though, we are just a thin layer of judges away from mob rule.)
You do understand how the petty theft criminal represented by a public defender is at a disadvantage to the white collar criminal with an army of lawyers paid by the company?
"We should just catch more of them" is like saying we should just solve our energy problem by making nuclear fusion work. Sure, everyone agrees with that but that's just wishful thinking
Petty theft is done for different reasons to white collar crime. I agree with you that the punishment is not a deterrence for small offences.
I think there's a lot of deterrence coming from the Enron case where people actually went to jail. That's just too rare because you quickly get into questions of intent. And to prove intent is really hard.
Your note about 'proving intent is really hard' is kind of the underlying reason - white collar criminals tend to believe they will never be caught/convicted. So making sentences more severe for those who are caught and convicted doesn't actually impact those future criminals, because their calculations say there's no risk of it being applied to them.
If you tear apart whatever guarantees human rights exist on your places just so your can impose unreasonable punishment to nobody, then don't act surprised when somebody else uses it against real people you sympathize with. (And yeah, if you are from the US or some other place where lifelong punishment is common, you should be fighting to fix this, not to add support to it.)
On the other hand, you could be pushing for those people being punished at all, by reasonable crimes that your law probably already recognizes or that could be added without rotting your society. But yeah, maybe that's too much.
On the one hand I don't want the bar to this discipline raised. On the other hand, I don't want people like us (metaphorically) building bridges that tip every two hundredth car into the river.
(source: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-documents/dc4432-guidan...)
White collar crime gets basically no punishment, and looking at career of those people they usually end up falling upwards.
For such cases banning them from being in a management position for X years would be a nice discouragement.
I mean the article literally says the engineer could have been sent to prison for 75 years for his role in the fraud(effectively a lifetime sentence).
execs and upper management who instigate such incidents? almost no real punishment ever happens.
> Beyond knowing what you did, and remembering the punishment, which for most people is already a burden heavy enough.
Like, seriously? These people do not feel bad, there is no heavy burden. They are proud of how they earned money, feel like any prosecution is grave injustice and would do it again.
Widely immoral people, whether in politics or business, dont feel sorry for who they are. They made those decisions because there was no moral dilema for them.
Others who want to earn money and are likewise ambivalent about the means will see a felony conviction for causing grievous public harm in the pursuit of giant piles of money as an endorsement and hire the "reformed" exec at the first opportunity.
In other words, once you've carried out your sentence, in 99% of the cases it's done and behind you, and you can go on living a normal life without anyone else needing to know.
Not sure how that's relevant.
In Türkiye, certain crimes disbar you from running for election (and you're required to have a university degree).
And say its 2 17 year olds, and you take nude pictures to send to your partner. Now, having sex is legal here, but a picture? Thats possessing 'child sexual assault imagery'. Nobody would think 17 year olds are 'children'. Even the law routinely charges them as adults.
And getting a felony at all follows you around, unless you can pay the danegeld to have it removed. Of course, staying clean isn't sufficient. Paying $10k or more is.
I happen to disagree. I think these crimes (and many others) should follow you more or less permanently.
My opinions on what "should" be the case have just as much validity as yours.
Please be self aware when you are making baseless moral claims.
A bit of self-awareness would suit yourself well. I didn't make any moral clas, baseless or not.
Or do you just claim this because that's your gut feeling?
If "targeting insurance policies of women with breast cancer for cancellation, using any pretext" is accurate - I'm curious how that compares to the absolutely worst crimes to you.
If you are saying that twentysomething founders should not be held accountable for the mistakes of their "youth," then you might be inclined hold the investors personally accountable for funding them--similar to parents being liable for their teenagers' driving mishaps.
I am disinclined to believe that Javice and his ilk are very much corrected by the Department of Corrections or later life experiences.
And it is absolutely reasonable that a crime committed in the course of your profession could prevent you ever working in that profession again.
Make decisions to harm others, don't be surprised if it blows back in kind. Golden Rule is there for a reason. Treat others as you would have them do unto you.
If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it? One way of interpreting your scare quotes is that the executives turned a health insurer into a law violating company.
Obviously there are burdens of proof and this is most likely not possible to prosecute (it sounds like the health insurer has already shrunk and based on the date of the anecdote above, I’m guessing the relevant statutes of limitations have expired.
The general answer to that is: it depends on a lot of factors, but sometimes yes and sometimes no. The specific answer varies between jurisdictions, I think even between different US states and certainly between countries. It's often relevant whether you knew or should reasonably have known at the time of purchase that the property was stolen.
To be clear, I'm not expressing any kind of personal opinion here - I'm saying how the world actually works. Sometimes that matches what you are advocating, but sometimes not.
Of course, in both the mindset you advocate and in the other mindset, you have a claim against the person who stole your car, for sure, as well as anyone else who knowingly trafficked in the stolen goods.
Sometimes the relevant rules are different for real property vs personal property, and sometimes it matters whether the property's ownership has been registered in some register which the purchaser can verify before purchase. I don't think US car title records are generally publicly verifiable.
It's also usually relevant how the property was stolen - theft in the sense of actual larceny often has harsher consequences for the eventual bona fide purchaser (and more protections for the original owner) than if the property was stolen by fraudulently inducing the original owner to sign a deed of sale.
I'm avoiding giving specifics here because, again, the details vary by jurisdiction and by the particular facts and circumstances.
Remember, every person working for an insurer has unparalleled access to data on what the effects of their decision is going to be. You can't claim ignorance once you've seen the glorified spreadsheets that run these companies.
Not really; attainder occurs when you're convicted by a legislator as opposed to a judge.
But true, attainder is not directly related to kin punishment.
For people in specific classes that benefit from networks and status: it is not.
It should be default. If you abuse your power and position, it should have cascading effects not just for you but people that benefited from it.
This idea that only one person at fault when there are 10's of people that hide behind the crime is just non-sense and has done immeasurable damage to society.
And I stress again: it should be income bracket/class based. The higher you are, the harder the fall.
Go after the guilty party and revert whatever benefits they got. If money went to dependents, that money is to be seized. But those who received the money are not at fault per se. Unless they helped in the crime, then they are obviously guilty too, but not of receiving fund but for helping committing a crime.
You can even see the evidence in many of the sister comments here.
Loopholes and lawfare are the tools of the corrupt
Laws are like code: It only seems perfect until it meets the real world. And the complications only seem frivolous until it's your ass on the line.
We really don't in reality. The manner in which even the existing laws are enforced leaves a lot to be desired.
Propensity to do harm through crime, violence, etc. is largely a genetic attribute.
Take a violent drug lord for example. Do you really want a woman capable of loving him allowed to continue on as if nothing happened?
People don't really care about drug addicts and gay folks, though (there's a fairly significant number of folks that think they "deserve" it), so it didn't get as much attention.