4 ms·

I would like to see sentencing (probationary or prison) for financial crimes correspond to the amount of time it would take the median American to earn the amou

by iaw 8y ago

I would like to see sentencing (probationary or prison) for financial crimes correspond to the amount of time it would take the median American to earn the amount of illicit proceeds. So if someone makes $5M illegally their penalty would be 5x greater than that of someone that made $1M illegally and both would vary in proportion to how many years of someone's life that represents.

trjordan 8y ago
I disagree with the notion that the penalty for white-collar crime should be strictly proportional to how good you are at that brand of crime. In a world where people occasionally steal $100m, that implies a maximum sentence of ~1 year for stealing $1m.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I think you missed a big chunk of the OP's comment, if an average wage in the US is 60k then stealing 1m would be a sentence of 16 years 100m would be a 1600 year sentence by following the logic. It would be nice from the perspective of reducing the incomprehensibility from white collar crimes that net hundreds of millions of dollars though I'd be concerned about false charges... well, I'm generally concerned about false charges so we just need to fix our justice system, then such a scaling might make good sense. Just to briefly note, these crimes aren't victimless, people who pull these sorts of stunts are taking money out of someone's pocket, usually fraudulent stock maneuvers will end up negatively impacting retirement mutual funds, sometimes other white-collar crimes may be more impactful, prematurely issuing foreclosures deprives people of their household. In the former case the damage is spread around and less horrific feeling, but both are terrible.
idoh 8y ago
There are many reasons for punishment, like retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Your proposal sorta makes sense on the retribution angle, but is grossly excessive for rehabilitation and deterrence. On the deterrence side, once someone has racked up, say, 50 years, there is no reason to stop because they will not really get punished further.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Rehabilitation has not been a component of US sentencing policy for over 40 years.
  - idoh 8y ago
    Fair point - it is a theoretical rationale for punishment but not done in practice so I should have omitted it.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I think it's fair to idealistically include it, it is one of the three theoretical goals. I personally think deterrence is the most vital goal of punishment but I think modern society is just concerned with retribution... especially with our "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" philosophy of late.
rhizome 8y ago
Median wage (all occupations) appears to be $18/hr, so with a 40 hour week that puts the sentence somewhere around 110 years.
wuliwong 8y ago
$5 million would be roughly 100 years. :)
Lazare 8y ago
Sentencing guidelines already do this, and it works terribly. The problem is not all crimes are created equally. "Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater. Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty." Criminal A stole $50k from pensioners via confidence tricks. Criminal B was engaged in a complex structure to shelter income; it was eventually ruled illegal and he was found to have avoided $50m in taxes. These are both financial crimes, but by your logic Criminal B has done something a THOUSAND times worse than Criminal A, and thus if Criminal B gets sentenced for 5 years (a not-uncommon sentence for people convicted of large scale tax fraud) then Criminal A gets locked up for 44 hours. Conversely if Criminal A gets sentenced to 10 years (a not-atypical sentence for that sort of crime), Criminal B gets locked up for 10,000 years? Or in other words, life without parol; a sentence we don't always hand out to murderers and rapists. For what is very likely nothing more than disagreeing with the IRS about how exactly a loophole in a very arcane law actually works? By any reasonable metric, Criminal A deserves the harsher penalty. The face value of the amounts tells you very little about actual harm, culpability, chance of re-offending, etc.

by iaw 8y ago

trjordan 8y ago

I disagree with the notion that the penalty for white-collar crime should be strictly proportional to how good you are at that brand of crime. In a world where people occasionally steal $100m, that implies a maximum sentence of ~1 year for stealing $1m.

munk-a 8y ago
I think you missed a big chunk of the OP's comment, if an average wage in the US is 60k then stealing 1m would be a sentence of 16 years 100m would be a 1600 year sentence by following the logic. It would be nice from the perspective of reducing the incomprehensibility from white collar crimes that net hundreds of millions of dollars though I'd be concerned about false charges... well, I'm generally concerned about false charges so we just need to fix our justice system, then such a scaling might make good sense. Just to briefly note, these crimes aren't victimless, people who pull these sorts of stunts are taking money out of someone's pocket, usually fraudulent stock maneuvers will end up negatively impacting retirement mutual funds, sometimes other white-collar crimes may be more impactful, prematurely issuing foreclosures deprives people of their household. In the former case the damage is spread around and less horrific feeling, but both are terrible.

idoh 8y ago

There are many reasons for punishment, like retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Your proposal sorta makes sense on the retribution angle, but is grossly excessive for rehabilitation and deterrence. On the deterrence side, once someone has racked up, say, 50 years, there is no reason to stop because they will not really get punished further.

rhizome 8y ago
Rehabilitation has not been a component of US sentencing policy for over 40 years.
- idoh 8y ago
  Fair point - it is a theoretical rationale for punishment but not done in practice so I should have omitted it.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I think it's fair to idealistically include it, it is one of the three theoretical goals. I personally think deterrence is the most vital goal of punishment but I think modern society is just concerned with retribution... especially with our "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" philosophy of late.

rhizome 8y ago

Median wage (all occupations) appears to be $18/hr, so with a 40 hour week that puts the sentence somewhere around 110 years.

wuliwong 8y ago

$5 million would be roughly 100 years. :)

Lazare 8y ago

Sentencing guidelines already do this, and it works terribly. The problem is not all crimes are created equally. "Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater. Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty." Criminal A stole $50k from pensioners via confidence tricks. Criminal B was engaged in a complex structure to shelter income; it was eventually ruled illegal and he was found to have avoided $50m in taxes. These are both financial crimes, but by your logic Criminal B has done something a THOUSAND times worse than Criminal A, and thus if Criminal B gets sentenced for 5 years (a not-uncommon sentence for people convicted of large scale tax fraud) then Criminal A gets locked up for 44 hours. Conversely if Criminal A gets sentenced to 10 years (a not-atypical sentence for that sort of crime), Criminal B gets locked up for 10,000 years? Or in other words, life without parol; a sentence we don't always hand out to murderers and rapists. For what is very likely nothing more than disagreeing with the IRS about how exactly a loophole in a very arcane law actually works? By any reasonable metric, Criminal A deserves the harsher penalty. The face value of the amounts tells you very little about actual harm, culpability, chance of re-offending, etc.