5 ms·

Honestly, I don't see how an 11-year sentence would have much more of a deterrent effect on others than, say, a 3-year one. She doesn't seem likely to reoffend,

Honestly, I don't see how an 11-year sentence would have much more of a deterrent effect on others than, say, a 3-year one. She doesn't seem likely to reoffend, and it's not like her time in jail will pay back the people she defrauded. It seems like this sentence (like many others in our judicial system) is based more on retribution than anything else.

LilBytes 4y ago
Deterance is the outcome the courts were hoping for here.
andirk 4y ago
She hurt money, especially of super wealthy people, and in this country, that is the biggest crime. Furthermore, enhancing someone's sentence to scare the next person is not justice. That's sacrificial and gross.
- falcor84 4y ago
  Are you arguing against the whole idea of deterrence?
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    You wrote a silly comment, the normal punishment is a downvote, but as we want to deter others from doing so we will execute you.
axiolite 4y ago
> She doesn't seem likely to reoffend Oh yes she does. You think she's going to be happy at a menial job? No, she'll be right back with a new con the moment she's back on the street. Only now her name recognition will make the con harder.
- mccorrinall 4y ago
  What do you base this on? Gut feelings or is there actual evidence?
  - mattmanser 4y ago
    My Google-fu is not working well with recidivism this morning, but there does seem to be some evidence it's true, e.g.: Offenders who committed a crime of dishonesty had the highest reconviction rate (45.6%) https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/reconviction-rates-rise-in-latest-figures/ https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/reconv...
  - origin_path 4y ago
    She doesn't appear to feel that she did anything wrong originally, and by implication will feel like she's a victim of injustice, so, very likely to reoffend.
belorn 4y ago
The length of prison time seems to me to have multiple aspects to them beyond just rehabilitation or retribution. Often it seems like the purpose is to send signals in order to set social norms, to discourage future criminals, to remove threats, and fairness when compared to worse or lesser crimes. People often debate the rehabilitation vs retribution aspect, but I rarely see people discuss the others.
xdennis 4y ago
Prison is for punishment. Not everyone believes in the "turn the other cheek" nonsense. She has harmed a lot of people and should be punished for it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hnfong 4y ago
To me at least. Risking a 3-year sentence to get a billion dollars might be worth it (assuming that I'm not morally objected to the "crime" in question), but 10 years feels a bit much.
- falcor84 4y ago
  It's not even the risk. Depending on the day you ask me, If I was given the option of living as a billionaire for several years and then spending several years in prison, I might just take it. Though I suppose I personally would prefer the prison time first and the billionaire thing after (like in Chekhov's "The Bet"). In any case, I'm sure that there's a big fraction of humanity who would jump at the chance.

LilBytes 4y ago

Deterance is the outcome the courts were hoping for here.

andirk 4y ago

She hurt money, especially of super wealthy people, and in this country, that is the biggest crime. Furthermore, enhancing someone's sentence to scare the next person is not justice. That's sacrificial and gross.

falcor84 4y ago
Are you arguing against the whole idea of deterrence?
- shapefrog 4y ago
  You wrote a silly comment, the normal punishment is a downvote, but as we want to deter others from doing so we will execute you.

axiolite 4y ago

> She doesn't seem likely to reoffend Oh yes she does. You think she's going to be happy at a menial job? No, she'll be right back with a new con the moment she's back on the street. Only now her name recognition will make the con harder.

mccorrinall 4y ago
What do you base this on? Gut feelings or is there actual evidence?
- mattmanser 4y ago
  My Google-fu is not working well with recidivism this morning, but there does seem to be some evidence it's true, e.g.: Offenders who committed a crime of dishonesty had the highest reconviction rate (45.6%) https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/reconviction-rates-rise-in-latest-figures/ https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/reconv...
- origin_path 4y ago
  She doesn't appear to feel that she did anything wrong originally, and by implication will feel like she's a victim of injustice, so, very likely to reoffend.

belorn 4y ago

The length of prison time seems to me to have multiple aspects to them beyond just rehabilitation or retribution. Often it seems like the purpose is to send signals in order to set social norms, to discourage future criminals, to remove threats, and fairness when compared to worse or lesser crimes. People often debate the rehabilitation vs retribution aspect, but I rarely see people discuss the others.

xdennis 4y ago

Prison is for punishment. Not everyone believes in the "turn the other cheek" nonsense. She has harmed a lot of people and should be punished for it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hnfong 4y ago

To me at least. Risking a 3-year sentence to get a billion dollars might be worth it (assuming that I'm not morally objected to the "crime" in question), but 10 years feels a bit much.

falcor84 4y ago
It's not even the risk. Depending on the day you ask me, If I was given the option of living as a billionaire for several years and then spending several years in prison, I might just take it. Though I suppose I personally would prefer the prison time first and the billionaire thing after (like in Chekhov's "The Bet"). In any case, I'm sure that there's a big fraction of humanity who would jump at the chance.