Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylangs1030 | Hacker News Reader

I would be okay with a maximum sentence of five years.

I believe it's important to consider prison as rehabilitation, not as vengeance. The tone of your consideration makes it clear that you'd want him in jail only for vengeance - it's not up to you to "be okay" with the offender's sentence. All that matters is that it is appropriate.

Depending on the prison, I would be okay with a criminal spending only five years for every degree of murder save for first degree.

I can assure you, you'll get over your bank account being empty. Yes, I know, you could lose a substantial amount of money. But there is insurance for these sorts of things (despite it not being foolproof), and I don't think you fully consider how five years of prison can change you.

View on HN

"I can assure you, you'll get over your bank account being empty."

So you're willing to give up your amassed fortune to the people who have had their bank accounts wiped clean because of these scumbags, then?

1) You're nitpicking. Look at my entire argument, then come back to me with a rebuttal of my point, not a sentence.

2) It's not my responsibility to right crimes. However, what I do have an opinion on is not calling criminals scumbags for committing white collar crimes. I get lives can be ruined, yes. But you effectively crucify them and remove all context from the crime by just looking at them, sneering and judging them as worthless human beings.

My second point is not meant to imply I'm a feel-good hippie who encourages free love and understanding. They are at fault for what they did. However, they are also a product of their environment(s), and retribution is groundless. Rehabilitation is both more generous and productive for all parties included.

Yes, I am nitpicking. All that I need to do is point out one flaw, and your argument fails.

what for all bank robbery? You cant have lesser sentences for a cyber version of a crime it makes a mockery of natural justice.

I don't think you should have more than five years for physically robbing a bank (assuming that's the only charge against you) either. Again, that's just my opinion. But I'm being consistent - whether or not it happened online is meaningless to me.

Robbing a bank in person is a completely different crime. Many victims suffer mentally for years afterwards with PTSD and other issues

If you read the context of my comment (it being a reply to another comment), I think it would be more clear that I'm not minimizing physical bank robberies. It's more about me not lessening the sentence for cyber crime.

why not? there is a big difference b/w someone waving a gun and assaulting people physically and someone who did not directly threaten people's life.

Small nitpick - many bank robberies are initiated and concluded just by passing a note to the teller without any overt threats, and without having any weapons on them. If they're savvy, they'll even ask for the money to be laid on the table to avoid the dye packs.

The popular portrayal of a bank robbery is dramatic but outdated.

I imagine that it's still a very threatening experience for teller. Much worse than logging on to a computer and discovering that there are money missing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com