4 ms·

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be p

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be paid, but extremely long prison terms for non-violent crimes such as hacking computer systems seem strange. In fact, some of these wrongdoers actually are very intelligent, and having them make amends with their intellect could be a just way to perform community service. Anyone able to chime in? I'm not well informed on the different views, so I'd like to gain some insight to this view.

levemi 11y ago
You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? He destroyed thousands of lives, ruined their savings and their ability to retire. Many people will probably have a far worse quality end of life experience because of him. The opportunities for the children of his victims is much diminished. It was an incredibly damaging crime and he's in prison right now bragging about it still. He's not ashamed of all the hurt he's caused. You think someone like that shouldn't be in prison? Ok, well if you do I still disagree. That guy belongs where he is for the time he has to be there for.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  >You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? No, no--I am merely asking and want to know the purpose of these long terms. I don't believe I mentioned Madoff in particular but in general with respect to things like drug distribution, computer hacking, etc. As I said in the beginning, I believe there is some price to be paid. My confusion is why we sentence some people to 1 year or to 10 years in prison for a non-violent crime, and then some for 200 years. So my observation of the non-violent criminal justice is that punishment is not meted out in a deterministic fashion, even if it's intended to rehabilitate. While if you are convicted of killing somebody, it is almost guaranteed you will lose your freedom indefinitely. I know of someone who was accused of hacking a computer network without actually producing much harm aside from snooping at info, yet he was asked to serve 2 years. I'm not educated or well-informed in these aspects. You seem to be mistaking my asking of the question with advocating a position. I apologize if I have offended you.
  - levemi 11y ago
    You didn't at all offend me, I was just making a counter-argument. I also am not well informed on these things.
beeboop 11y ago
If you remove the risk of prison for nonviolent offenders, you're creating a world where large businesses and their owners will no longer care whether they do something illegal, they will only care about the risks of getting caught versus the potential profit to be made. You turn the criminal justice system into a risk analysis that happens in some board room. There will be no real detriment to rich people for breaking the law - worse case scenario they lose some money, the equivalent of you ruining the financial security of thousands of people or causing billions in irreversible environmental damage and getting a speeding ticket for it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonjei 11y ago
  I understand there has to be some price to be paid. My question is the length. Is the term deterministic or is it arbitrary? I have never really understood why some non-violent crimes are sentenced with 10 years in prison versus 200 years in prison. For example, a self-victim crime of consuming drugs is punished harshly in Singapore.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    At some point the length was arbitrary. As precedence is created, it becomes more deterministic but only somewhat more so. Often times there are minimum sentencing laws, the length of which is mostly arbitrary.
svachalek 11y ago
At least here in the U.S., the odds of getting any punishment at all for "white collar" crime seems very low, and even if it happens, long prison terms are not likely. It seems the main thing holding people back is cultural, not fear of punishment. That sort of system is very biased towards the upper classes though. Those who have access to the education and resources and connections to pull off this sort of crime end up punished lightly if at all, while those of similar character who are stuck robbing liquor stores are locked away for years, even though the overall damage they inflict may be minor in comparison.

levemi 11y ago

You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? He destroyed thousands of lives, ruined their savings and their ability to retire. Many people will probably have a far worse quality end of life experience because of him. The opportunities for the children of his victims is much diminished. It was an incredibly damaging crime and he's in prison right now bragging about it still. He's not ashamed of all the hurt he's caused. You think someone like that shouldn't be in prison? Ok, well if you do I still disagree. That guy belongs where he is for the time he has to be there for.

jasonjei 11y ago
>You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? No, no--I am merely asking and want to know the purpose of these long terms. I don't believe I mentioned Madoff in particular but in general with respect to things like drug distribution, computer hacking, etc. As I said in the beginning, I believe there is some price to be paid. My confusion is why we sentence some people to 1 year or to 10 years in prison for a non-violent crime, and then some for 200 years. So my observation of the non-violent criminal justice is that punishment is not meted out in a deterministic fashion, even if it's intended to rehabilitate. While if you are convicted of killing somebody, it is almost guaranteed you will lose your freedom indefinitely. I know of someone who was accused of hacking a computer network without actually producing much harm aside from snooping at info, yet he was asked to serve 2 years. I'm not educated or well-informed in these aspects. You seem to be mistaking my asking of the question with advocating a position. I apologize if I have offended you.
- levemi 11y ago
  You didn't at all offend me, I was just making a counter-argument. I also am not well informed on these things.

beeboop 11y ago

If you remove the risk of prison for nonviolent offenders, you're creating a world where large businesses and their owners will no longer care whether they do something illegal, they will only care about the risks of getting caught versus the potential profit to be made. You turn the criminal justice system into a risk analysis that happens in some board room. There will be no real detriment to rich people for breaking the law - worse case scenario they lose some money, the equivalent of you ruining the financial security of thousands of people or causing billions in irreversible environmental damage and getting a speeding ticket for it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jasonjei 11y ago
I understand there has to be some price to be paid. My question is the length. Is the term deterministic or is it arbitrary? I have never really understood why some non-violent crimes are sentenced with 10 years in prison versus 200 years in prison. For example, a self-victim crime of consuming drugs is punished harshly in Singapore.
- beeboop 11y ago
  At some point the length was arbitrary. As precedence is created, it becomes more deterministic but only somewhat more so. Often times there are minimum sentencing laws, the length of which is mostly arbitrary.

svachalek 11y ago

At least here in the U.S., the odds of getting any punishment at all for "white collar" crime seems very low, and even if it happens, long prison terms are not likely. It seems the main thing holding people back is cultural, not fear of punishment. That sort of system is very biased towards the upper classes though. Those who have access to the education and resources and connections to pull off this sort of crime end up punished lightly if at all, while those of similar character who are stuck robbing liquor stores are locked away for years, even though the overall damage they inflict may be minor in comparison.