3 ms·

I’d imagine the penalty at least involves returning any stolen money, but a garnishment on future income and additional IRS scrutiny should do it. I actually t

I’d imagine the penalty at least involves returning any stolen money, but a garnishment on future income and additional IRS scrutiny should do it. I actually think jail time isn’t enough a disincentive without the financial penalty because otherwise it can just be a cost of doing business. For example there was a chronic thief in SF that stole peoples’ laptops from cafes. She was jailed multiple times but because the police had no way of knowing where she hid the stolen goods they were still never recovered and presumably she kept her earnings even after jail time.

wpietri 4y ago
Oh, yeah, I totally agree that there should be financial penalties larger than the ill-gotten gains. I'm just saying that isn't enough.
- candiodari 4y ago
  There's a legal expression (it's in French originally) that says "You can't get blood from a stone" This effectively means financial crimes can never be repaid in full, and frequently only small percentages get repaid. It also means the government can never hope to actually do anything to help other than punishment. Going after financial crimes to protect victims ... just doesn't work. Somehow this is enormously at odds with people's expectation of justice, and people either just can't or refuse to believe that's really how it works.