4 ms·

They could game that and take turns when they want to retire. Fines are not enough. Prison time would make a better deterrent.

nickff 5y ago
Paying a huge fine will likely disrupt a retirement plan.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- trillic 5y ago
  Not if the company pays it.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Not if the company pays it. " That's why I included the "... prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization...".
- bogwog 5y ago
  People gamble money all the time, even when the odds are terrible. Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money." Since you brought it up... reductio ad absurdum: The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? As per my sibling comment: I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Counterpoint: a fine will do nothing but ensure that assets will end up in trust. Prison will actually ensure that even if they do escape financial ruin, they will be paying a debt in hard, non-fungible, time.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think you'd have a hard time proving that capitol punishment was a more effective deterrent than prison. It doesn't seem to be one for crimes like murder (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291). If fines are to work they would have to meaningfully reduce an individual's standard of living and continue to enforce that. Otherwise what's to stop Amazon from having people lie to congress, get fined, and then "gift" them the money back with a heavy bonus? What's to stop Amazon's corporate buddies from hiring the liar with a massive bump and a bonus to cover the fine? Some crimes justify "extreme sentences" and knowingly lying to congress should be one of them. I find a prison sentence far less extreme than forcing a person to a lower standard of living and preventing them from being to work for accept large amounts of money in the future.
    - bogwog 5y ago
      > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? That would also be an effective deterrent, more so than prison alone probably. Torture would be even better, especially torture of family, friends, and pets. > My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses. Everything has pros and cons. How many innocent people will plead to a lesser crime vs how much will crime be reduced by the threat of prison? In lieu of a study to answer that, we have to rely on our experiences dealing with people. You seem to believe a criminal will be deterred by fines, but I disagree. This isn’t the type of opinion that can be changed by arguing over the internet.

nickff 5y ago

Paying a huge fine will likely disrupt a retirement plan.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
trillic 5y ago
Not if the company pays it.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Not if the company pays it. " That's why I included the "... prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization...".
bogwog 5y ago
People gamble money all the time, even when the odds are terrible. Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money." Since you brought it up... reductio ad absurdum: The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? As per my sibling comment: I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Counterpoint: a fine will do nothing but ensure that assets will end up in trust. Prison will actually ensure that even if they do escape financial ruin, they will be paying a debt in hard, non-fungible, time.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think you'd have a hard time proving that capitol punishment was a more effective deterrent than prison. It doesn't seem to be one for crimes like murder (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291). If fines are to work they would have to meaningfully reduce an individual's standard of living and continue to enforce that. Otherwise what's to stop Amazon from having people lie to congress, get fined, and then "gift" them the money back with a heavy bonus? What's to stop Amazon's corporate buddies from hiring the liar with a massive bump and a bonus to cover the fine? Some crimes justify "extreme sentences" and knowingly lying to congress should be one of them. I find a prison sentence far less extreme than forcing a person to a lower standard of living and preventing them from being to work for accept large amounts of money in the future.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? That would also be an effective deterrent, more so than prison alone probably. Torture would be even better, especially torture of family, friends, and pets. > My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses. Everything has pros and cons. How many innocent people will plead to a lesser crime vs how much will crime be reduced by the threat of prison? In lieu of a study to answer that, we have to rely on our experiences dealing with people. You seem to believe a criminal will be deterred by fines, but I disagree. This isn’t the type of opinion that can be changed by arguing over the internet.