5 ms·

This is true, which is why we also invest in preventing crimes in addition to punishing crimes. We should proactively have safeguards for things like wire frau

by habosa 10y ago

This is true, which is why we also invest in preventing crimes in addition to punishing crimes. We should proactively have safeguards for things like wire fraud (I'm sure we do). The equation is only how to punish people that escape prevention.

leereeves 10y ago
If we granted that such a precisely calculated fine might discourage people who do a precise calculation of expected profit, and who know the odds that they'll be caught... Is this something we can really calculate so closely? What if it turns out the banks are better at such calculations than the government, and crime is profitable?
- dpark 10y ago
  I don't think anyone proposed that we attempt to make the penalty precisely offset the profit. Penalties can be scaled up by 50 or 100 percent to offset whatever ineptness you assume the government will possess.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    The comment I replied to was arguing against high fines, with a recommendation to use that formula. Personally, I feel there's a disparity here between punishment for the rich (make the fine slightly higher than the expected profit) and the poor (put them in a cage for years).
    - dpark 10y ago
      > The comment I replied to was arguing against high fines, with a recommendation to use that formula No he wasn't. He was arguing against scaling up fines based on a company's general profits. The formula given simply said that the fine and the chance of being caught should be greater than the profit from the illegal activity. How much greater was unspecified. > Personally, I feel there's a disparity here between punishment for the rich (make the fine slightly higher than the expected profit) and the poor (put them in a cage for years). I agree with that, but don't feel that scaling fines resolves the issue that poor criminals land in jail while wealthy criminals don't even pay their own fines (instead the corporation does). You don't fix this discrepancy by raising fines on the wealthy.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - leereeves 10y ago
        > How much greater was unspecified. However great the difference between the expected profit and the fine, a purely financial penalty for crime will always encourage three things: gambling, trying outsmart the government by finding ways to make more profit or reduce the chance of being caught, and rich people ignoring the law and committing the crime for non-financial reasons (for example: thrill seeking, as a favor to someone, to enable another crime, or from pure malice) with no real penalty to them. I think we both agree jail is a more appropriate punishment, though we're making the argument in different ways.

by habosa 10y ago

leereeves 10y ago

If we granted that such a precisely calculated fine might discourage people who do a precise calculation of expected profit, and who know the odds that they'll be caught... Is this something we can really calculate so closely? What if it turns out the banks are better at such calculations than the government, and crime is profitable?

dpark 10y ago
I don't think anyone proposed that we attempt to make the penalty precisely offset the profit. Penalties can be scaled up by 50 or 100 percent to offset whatever ineptness you assume the government will possess.
- leereeves 10y ago
  The comment I replied to was arguing against high fines, with a recommendation to use that formula. Personally, I feel there's a disparity here between punishment for the rich (make the fine slightly higher than the expected profit) and the poor (put them in a cage for years).
  - dpark 10y ago
    > The comment I replied to was arguing against high fines, with a recommendation to use that formula No he wasn't. He was arguing against scaling up fines based on a company's general profits. The formula given simply said that the fine and the chance of being caught should be greater than the profit from the illegal activity. How much greater was unspecified. > Personally, I feel there's a disparity here between punishment for the rich (make the fine slightly higher than the expected profit) and the poor (put them in a cage for years). I agree with that, but don't feel that scaling fines resolves the issue that poor criminals land in jail while wealthy criminals don't even pay their own fines (instead the corporation does). You don't fix this discrepancy by raising fines on the wealthy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > How much greater was unspecified. However great the difference between the expected profit and the fine, a purely financial penalty for crime will always encourage three things: gambling, trying outsmart the government by finding ways to make more profit or reduce the chance of being caught, and rich people ignoring the law and committing the crime for non-financial reasons (for example: thrill seeking, as a favor to someone, to enable another crime, or from pure malice) with no real penalty to them. I think we both agree jail is a more appropriate punishment, though we're making the argument in different ways.