4 ms·
They can keep their "earnings" as long as they can't spend it in jail. The precedence that we will not tolerate crimes as a path to unimaginable wealth is wort
by BrianOnHN 5y ago
They can keep their "earnings" as long as they can't spend it in jail.
The precedence that we will not tolerate crimes as a path to unimaginable wealth is worth more than they could bankroll.
- nickff 5y agoI would assume that if they are found guilty of criminal negligence, fraud, or something else that would land them in jail, they would also likely lose a civil suit with a related cause of action.
- Scoundreller 5y agoYeah, a civil case is easy enough once the prosecutor has collected all of the evidence you need in the first place.
- ddoolin 5y agoHopefully prison, not jail, and they can spend it all they want on commissary. That little TV won't make you forget you're there, believe me. Just my opinion, but the only justice here is to take their wealth away. A prison sentence is pretty meaningless unless they're in for life, which of course we all know a few years is the more likely reality (and I'm not advocating for life either).
- BrianOnHN 5y agoI agree with you. However unlikely, I simply see a prison sentence as the most likely "real" punishment. The reason I say "real" is because even if we meant to take "all" of their wealth, what are the chances we actually get all of it? And without getting all of it, a seemingly negligible amount of cash, like 10MM which is <0.1% relative to >10,000MM, can still make the crime "worth it."
- barkingcat 5y agoWith money, their external representatives can purchase the jail/prison and thus turn the jail into a kind of holiday resort for the rich. It'd be like house arrest.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agoThat doesn't actually happen in the US.