5 ms·

24 Months for this is crazy. He stole 10.4 million dollars of goods. He tipped off about another case coming against MtGox and knowingly continued these activit

24 Months for this is crazy. He stole 10.4 million dollars of goods. He tipped off about another case coming against MtGox and knowingly continued these activities after being caught. I think this just shows the weakness of out sentencing guidelines. People with a thousand dollars of drugs get decades and this guy gets 2 years tacked on?

tryingagainbro 9y ago
24 Months for this is crazy No it isn't. It's USA, snatch a chain (not trivial considering the trauma to the people but still...) while having a gun and you may get 99 years (Texas). Steal millions or billions and get a sentence of months.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  It looks ridiculous on paper, but it does make sense in the grand scheme of things. Aggravated assault/battery gone wrong has permanent consequences. Whether it's a $3 chain, a $3k necklace or a $30k car, when I steal it at gunpoint, an error in execution can result in loss of life. Life is not replaceable. There is no justice to be had, even if I'm caught. An embezzlement or scam gone wrong results in a few more digits than intended getting shuffled around and an insurance claim gets filed; if it falls through maybe a company goes under, a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail. Knowing crime is a predictable behavior, we are much better off as a society guiding determined criminals towards the lesser consequences of white collar crime. Would you rather someone open a $300k HELOC in your name or potentially kill you for the $20 in your wallet?
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement. Perhaps for you "a few digits" off your retirement isn't a huge issue because you can just send more money in, but that isn't true for the majority of the population. The reason for these harsh sentences isn't because they were "risking someone else's life", if it were we would have similar penalties for drunk driving. The basis for these disparities are clearly classism, racism and political fear mongering.
    - splintercell 9y ago
      > Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement. It's funny because I would make the exact opposite choice than you. Of course it isn't about just losing a $20 from my wallet, its about having a gun put on you. I'd rather lose my retirement than have anyone I know be robbed at gunpoint. And I believe there are a lot of people agree with me which is why the law is like that in Texas.
      - shkkmo 9y ago
        The law is not like that in texas because people are concerned with the risk of injury or death. If it were there would be a much harsher penalty for a first time DWI than: "After your first DWI offense in Texas, you may be fined up to $2,000 and spend between three and 180 days in jail." These differences in penalties are not due a rational fear of the associated risks.
    - jstarfish 9y ago
      Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make. I only have so many working years left. Not enough to recover from such a scenario. But I'd still choose to be old and destitute than risk orphaning my children for want of $20. Keyword being risk-- I'm aware most muggings do not end violently. A loss of your retirement funds could just as easily happen due to general economic instability. Medical bills. Bain Capital. But you get to try to pick up the pieces however you can...because however your loss was incurred, it didn't actually kill you. The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent than you're admitting...and everybody wanting tougher DUI laws until they get charged with one.
      - shkkmo 9y ago
        > Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make. That is pretty obvious and condescending to say. Obviously everyone has a different risk preference. I was responding to a question (which was attempting to be rhetorical), not trying to tell you what your risk preference should be. > The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent... If the basis for the disparities is criminal intent, then we wouldn't have seen the 2 year sentence for stealing 10 million dollars that is under discussion. A mugging for $20 has less criminal intent than a $10MM white collar crime and muggings kill far fewer people every year than drunk drivers. Disparities in punishments are highly driven by political fear mongering, classism and racism. (though this has somewhat lessened in recent years)
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail. Before or after the heart attack for losing everything? Rent is due tomorrow and restitution 4 years later doesn't help much
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    False choice. Why can't both be locked up forever?
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Yes, but I believe armed robbery is something very different as you intend or at least calculate the risk in to use your gun. This was "only" theft and lying to police. No one was physically threatened.
nightcracker 9y ago
The problem here is the decades...

tryingagainbro 9y ago

24 Months for this is crazy No it isn't. It's USA, snatch a chain (not trivial considering the trauma to the people but still...) while having a gun and you may get 99 years (Texas). Steal millions or billions and get a sentence of months.

jstarfish 9y ago
It looks ridiculous on paper, but it does make sense in the grand scheme of things. Aggravated assault/battery gone wrong has permanent consequences. Whether it's a $3 chain, a $3k necklace or a $30k car, when I steal it at gunpoint, an error in execution can result in loss of life. Life is not replaceable. There is no justice to be had, even if I'm caught. An embezzlement or scam gone wrong results in a few more digits than intended getting shuffled around and an insurance claim gets filed; if it falls through maybe a company goes under, a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail. Knowing crime is a predictable behavior, we are much better off as a society guiding determined criminals towards the lesser consequences of white collar crime. Would you rather someone open a $300k HELOC in your name or potentially kill you for the $20 in your wallet?
- shkkmo 9y ago
  Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement. Perhaps for you "a few digits" off your retirement isn't a huge issue because you can just send more money in, but that isn't true for the majority of the population. The reason for these harsh sentences isn't because they were "risking someone else's life", if it were we would have similar penalties for drunk driving. The basis for these disparities are clearly classism, racism and political fear mongering.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    > Yes, I would rather be mugged and have someone take $20 from my wallet than have someone take my entire retirement. It's funny because I would make the exact opposite choice than you. Of course it isn't about just losing a $20 from my wallet, its about having a gun put on you. I'd rather lose my retirement than have anyone I know be robbed at gunpoint. And I believe there are a lot of people agree with me which is why the law is like that in Texas.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      The law is not like that in texas because people are concerned with the risk of injury or death. If it were there would be a much harsher penalty for a first time DWI than: "After your first DWI offense in Texas, you may be fined up to $2,000 and spend between three and 180 days in jail." These differences in penalties are not due a rational fear of the associated risks.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make. I only have so many working years left. Not enough to recover from such a scenario. But I'd still choose to be old and destitute than risk orphaning my children for want of $20. Keyword being risk-- I'm aware most muggings do not end violently. A loss of your retirement funds could just as easily happen due to general economic instability. Medical bills. Bain Capital. But you get to try to pick up the pieces however you can...because however your loss was incurred, it didn't actually kill you. The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent than you're admitting...and everybody wanting tougher DUI laws until they get charged with one.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > Not everybody survives muggings, carjackings or home invasions, even when they comply. It's a choice between paying $20 to play Russian Roulette with a twitchy felon on the side of the road, or being scammed out of $300k and walking away. If you only look at the financial outcomes, of course it's an easy choice to make. That is pretty obvious and condescending to say. Obviously everyone has a different risk preference. I was responding to a question (which was attempting to be rhetorical), not trying to tell you what your risk preference should be. > The basis for these disparities has more to do with criminal intent... If the basis for the disparities is criminal intent, then we wouldn't have seen the 2 year sentence for stealing 10 million dollars that is under discussion. A mugging for $20 has less criminal intent than a $10MM white collar crime and muggings kill far fewer people every year than drunk drivers. Disparities in punishments are highly driven by political fear mongering, classism and racism. (though this has somewhat lessened in recent years)
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  a retirement fund/livelihood is ruined but in the end, all the players victimized are free to try living again in some capacity and/or try to seek restitution. That's what justice is supposed to entail. Before or after the heart attack for losing everything? Rent is due tomorrow and restitution 4 years later doesn't help much
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  False choice. Why can't both be locked up forever?
hutzlibu 9y ago
Yes, but I believe armed robbery is something very different as you intend or at least calculate the risk in to use your gun. This was "only" theft and lying to police. No one was physically threatened.

nightcracker 9y ago

The problem here is the decades...