5 ms·

Good people can still do evil things. Should someone not face the repercussions simply because they are a good person? This is in reply to those letters and n

Good people can still do evil things. Should someone not face the repercussions simply because they are a good person? This is in reply to those letters and not your position.

missedthecue 4y ago
I think it depends how much of a danger they are to society. Is Elizabeth Holmes likely to defraud or otherwise hurt people if she's not put in prison for X years? People on HN, Twitter, and every opinion column in the US are quick to advocate prison reform, but as soon as it comes to a character or subgroup they don't like, it's lock 'em up and throw away the key. I get it. Elizabeth Holmes was a rich asshole (who is guilty mainly of defrauding other rich assholes). But let's not let our incarceration policy be guided solely by our preconceptions, which are often heavily biased, influenced, and even misinformed. Punitive deconstructive punishment is corrosive to society.
- Kranar 4y ago
  Fair point, but there are also a lot of people, me included, who don't care too much about the fact that she's not a danger to society and instead want to see a punishment that would deter future corporate executives from thinking about doing anything remotely similar in the future. My desire for prison reform has nothing to do with sentencing. For the most part, prison reform has to do with conditions inside of a prison, for example cleanliness and the humane treatment of prisoners.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    > [I] want to see a punishment that would deter future corporate executives from thinking about doing anything remotely similar in the future. Unfortunately for that to happen, we would need some proof that punishment acts as a deterrent.
    - mecha_ghidorah 4y ago
      So I think (and this is I admit largely based on my opinion, I don't have good data for or against) that punishment is less of a deterrent so much as _how much there is to lose_ from the punishment... Note I don't mean (just) financial loss, but also how much the punishment will damage ones standard of living. For example, someone who was living in absolute poverty might get involved with a gang both for physical protection and to be able to live even somewhat comfortably by being involved in the drug trade; and from there may get involved in some amount of violent crime in order to maintain that life... Now the gain for me here is relatively speaking pretty high (get a much higher standard of living) and if they do go to prison, well, as shitty as prison is I already would be living a pretty shitty life outside of it (be barely or unable to pay bills, would live in an area with a decent amount of violent crime so being scared of violence in prison is comparatively less of a big deal, etc) Contrast this to "person from rich background commits fraud to become richer". If the penalty is "they lose their ill gotten gains and have to live in their comfortable home for 18 months" that... isn't risking very much either, so that isn't a strong disincentive. However if the penalty is serious prison time, the kind of fines that would absolutely ruin them, etc. then doing crime again carries significant risk My theory as to why punishment isn't a disincentive is largely that for serious crimes the risk of it happening isn't high enough, and the punishment isn't extreme enough for it to matter for people in poverty who would be inclined to crime... and because we punish white collar crime so rarely and so lightly the risk and severity of punishment is too low to discourage that as well. Obviously how this is corrected depends on which you are trying to address. For "low class" crime (drug dealing, etc) we already punish pretty severely as a society, and raising the standard of living for our poorest would probably have more impact (they'd have less to gain and more to lose). For white collar type crimes more severe punishment (so something significant beyond what was gained by the crime is lost) would probably be an affective disincentive. Again though, this is just my opinion based on my imagining of what would motivate me to commit crime
      - happymellon 4y ago
        Completely understand where you are coming from. However if they had fines that ruin them, then wouldn't they be in the position of having nothing to lose and becoming a repeat offender? The punishment would have to be off-putting without being motivation of offend again. But as we see with business fraud it happens all the time and decades of jail time don't deter.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  The question is, if you let Holmes off with an apology, will that not encourage others to repeat her actions?
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    It's not an apology, it's 18 months of house arrest. Nicer than federal prison? Yes.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  She would still be able to hurt people like her husband and her children - assuming she is manipulating them to help mitigate a criminal sentence. More generally, she could manipulate and scam anyone she is exposed to. Putting her in prison would reduce the risk of that harm. There is also deterrence to think about. In some sense, we could ban Holmes from being an executive in any company or from handling client funds or something and probably she would never be a problem for society again. But, if other, would be fraudulent CEOs knew that defeat meant a slap on the wrist, they would be encouraged to take risks and bend the rules. Generally, I am in favor of prison reform - but I think easing the sentences of the rich and powerful is a poor place to start.

Good people can still do evil things. Should someone not face the repercussions simply because they are a good person? This is in reply to those letters and not your position.

missedthecue 4y ago

I think it depends how much of a danger they are to society. Is Elizabeth Holmes likely to defraud or otherwise hurt people if she's not put in prison for X years? People on HN, Twitter, and every opinion column in the US are quick to advocate prison reform, but as soon as it comes to a character or subgroup they don't like, it's lock 'em up and throw away the key. I get it. Elizabeth Holmes was a rich asshole (who is guilty mainly of defrauding other rich assholes). But let's not let our incarceration policy be guided solely by our preconceptions, which are often heavily biased, influenced, and even misinformed. Punitive deconstructive punishment is corrosive to society.

Kranar 4y ago
Fair point, but there are also a lot of people, me included, who don't care too much about the fact that she's not a danger to society and instead want to see a punishment that would deter future corporate executives from thinking about doing anything remotely similar in the future. My desire for prison reform has nothing to do with sentencing. For the most part, prison reform has to do with conditions inside of a prison, for example cleanliness and the humane treatment of prisoners.
- happymellon 4y ago
  > [I] want to see a punishment that would deter future corporate executives from thinking about doing anything remotely similar in the future. Unfortunately for that to happen, we would need some proof that punishment acts as a deterrent.
  - mecha_ghidorah 4y ago
    So I think (and this is I admit largely based on my opinion, I don't have good data for or against) that punishment is less of a deterrent so much as _how much there is to lose_ from the punishment... Note I don't mean (just) financial loss, but also how much the punishment will damage ones standard of living. For example, someone who was living in absolute poverty might get involved with a gang both for physical protection and to be able to live even somewhat comfortably by being involved in the drug trade; and from there may get involved in some amount of violent crime in order to maintain that life... Now the gain for me here is relatively speaking pretty high (get a much higher standard of living) and if they do go to prison, well, as shitty as prison is I already would be living a pretty shitty life outside of it (be barely or unable to pay bills, would live in an area with a decent amount of violent crime so being scared of violence in prison is comparatively less of a big deal, etc) Contrast this to "person from rich background commits fraud to become richer". If the penalty is "they lose their ill gotten gains and have to live in their comfortable home for 18 months" that... isn't risking very much either, so that isn't a strong disincentive. However if the penalty is serious prison time, the kind of fines that would absolutely ruin them, etc. then doing crime again carries significant risk My theory as to why punishment isn't a disincentive is largely that for serious crimes the risk of it happening isn't high enough, and the punishment isn't extreme enough for it to matter for people in poverty who would be inclined to crime... and because we punish white collar crime so rarely and so lightly the risk and severity of punishment is too low to discourage that as well. Obviously how this is corrected depends on which you are trying to address. For "low class" crime (drug dealing, etc) we already punish pretty severely as a society, and raising the standard of living for our poorest would probably have more impact (they'd have less to gain and more to lose). For white collar type crimes more severe punishment (so something significant beyond what was gained by the crime is lost) would probably be an affective disincentive. Again though, this is just my opinion based on my imagining of what would motivate me to commit crime
    - happymellon 4y ago
      Completely understand where you are coming from. However if they had fines that ruin them, then wouldn't they be in the position of having nothing to lose and becoming a repeat offender? The punishment would have to be off-putting without being motivation of offend again. But as we see with business fraud it happens all the time and decades of jail time don't deter.
tedunangst 4y ago
The question is, if you let Holmes off with an apology, will that not encourage others to repeat her actions?
- missedthecue 4y ago
  It's not an apology, it's 18 months of house arrest. Nicer than federal prison? Yes.
ALittleLight 4y ago
She would still be able to hurt people like her husband and her children - assuming she is manipulating them to help mitigate a criminal sentence. More generally, she could manipulate and scam anyone she is exposed to. Putting her in prison would reduce the risk of that harm. There is also deterrence to think about. In some sense, we could ban Holmes from being an executive in any company or from handling client funds or something and probably she would never be a problem for society again. But, if other, would be fraudulent CEOs knew that defeat meant a slap on the wrist, they would be encouraged to take risks and bend the rules. Generally, I am in favor of prison reform - but I think easing the sentences of the rich and powerful is a poor place to start.