3 ms·

I'm not saying this person is innocent, but 25 years for something that didn't hurt anyone is way excessive. This sentence would be more appropriate for murdere

• qq66 9y ago
  One of the principles of tort law is that the penalty should account for the likelihood of getting caught. If your nuclear power plant melts down, punitive damages will be low, since there's no way you could have ever covered it up, and the plant will typically pay mostly compensatory damages for direct harms. For a tort where you expect that thousands of people have done it without getting caught, the punitive damages are very high so that the overall calculus for a prospective criminal becomes net negative expected value. That's not a principle of criminal law in the US but often becomes part of the sentence extrajudicially.
  • jernfrost 9y ago
    Pointless though as that is not how humans really assess risk. England tried thisin the 1700s or so. Replacing cops with harsh penalties. Did not work, punishment levels kept going up without any affect on crime
    • qq66 9y ago
      It may be how companies assess risk, especially family-owned businesses, which is probably why it's remained in tort law.
• mynameishere 9y ago
  Seems like he hurt every single person who played the game without cheating, to an aggregate of millions of dollars. Seems like 25 years is extraordinarily generous. If he picked 10,000 pockets or robbed 1000 banks he would get life in prison, and deserve it.