4 ms·

If the sentence is under 30yrs I will fly to a major city to attend a large scale protest. Poor people go to prison for decades for stealing chips from gas sta

If the sentence is under 30yrs I will fly to a major city to attend a large scale protest. Poor people go to prison for decades for stealing chips from gas stations... crime is wrong, but what SBF did to millions deserves a sizable sentence.

blacksmith_tb 4y ago
I sense a certain echo of Anatole France's famous observation here, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But more specifically I would think that going "to prison for decades for stealing chips" is the perverse outcome of mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws, which tough-on-crime politicians enacted to make their constituents feel like someone was "doing something" (making judges who take the actual facts of a given case mostly powerless). But SBF will of course be able to hire the best lawyers stolen billions can buy, and thus is likely to get off as lightly as a very rich person can. Just a guess, maybe he'll get decades, but I am not holding my breath.
- NullPrefix 4y ago
  The fact that he managed to use a $4M house for a $250M bail is telling about what's going to happen in this case
  - g42gregory 4y ago
    And the fact that he does not even own that $4M house. And the people who live in that house does not even own it completely either, but instead lease (or some other financial arrangement) the house, only as long as they are employed at the owner of that house.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I heard people speculating his parents may not own the house, but I have a hard time believing that would be agreeable to the court (unless perhaps Standford is one of the signatories that remains anonymous, and why would they be?). Has this been confirmed? The only "news" source I found discussing this was also speculating, and was a right-wing political blog. Not a source I'm comfortable relying on (even if it had been a left-wing or centrist political blog). But I didn't look very hard; open to being corrected if someone has a good source on this.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless. What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" figure comes? Why are you assigning some special meaning to it? It's pulled out of the ass of the very same judge who granted SBF bail.
    - NullPrefix 4y ago
      Just saying "refuted" or "debunked" without actually refuting of debunking a claim makes it sound like you are trying to gaslight people. Would you care to provide these refutations that you speak of?
      - bbbbb5 4y ago
        If you read the last line of my previous comment you will find a short-form refutation. Here's a longer explanation by a former federal prosecutor, current criminal defence attorney https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-get-bail https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...
        NullPrefix 4y ago
        Thanks for providing the actual refutation that you speak of. The refutation just reiterates the fact that he did not have to pay a $250M bond. Your refutation also mentions that the house bond isn't actually posted yet. Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman. Do you think SBF will have to pay 10% to someone based on $4M of the house value or $250M?
        bbbbb5 4y ago
        > Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman Bail bondsmen basically do not exist in federal courts. But sure, regular crooks generally don't end up in federal courts. I think that's probably where this confusion stems from.
- landemva 4y ago
  I suspect part of the reason he will plead to a middling sentence is because those in power don't want money laundering and political donations thoroughly exposed in court.
bbbbb5 4y ago
This seems like a particularly twisted take. Poor people get excessively long sentences so SBF should too? What a messed up line of thinking. A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included"
- dns_snek 4y ago
  Divide the amount of money his customers lost by the average hourly wage, then double it (as a punitive measure) to get the minimum prison time. 100+ years seems like a reasonable sentence in this case. Every dollar stolen/defrauded represents minutes of someone's life that they'll never get back.
- mavelikara 4y ago
  > A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included" How about "SBF getting an unreasonable sentence, hopefully, would be the catalyst of change towards every convicted criminal getting reasonable sentences"?
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    Accelerationism is also bad, yes. A rather nihilistic way of looking at things.
faangiq 4y ago
Book your flight pal the kid is gonna walk.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Before he was arrested, were you skeptical that he would be? If SBF gets, say, 10 years (a similar sentence to Holmes), what will you say then?

blacksmith_tb 4y ago

I sense a certain echo of Anatole France's famous observation here, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But more specifically I would think that going "to prison for decades for stealing chips" is the perverse outcome of mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws, which tough-on-crime politicians enacted to make their constituents feel like someone was "doing something" (making judges who take the actual facts of a given case mostly powerless). But SBF will of course be able to hire the best lawyers stolen billions can buy, and thus is likely to get off as lightly as a very rich person can. Just a guess, maybe he'll get decades, but I am not holding my breath.

NullPrefix 4y ago
The fact that he managed to use a $4M house for a $250M bail is telling about what's going to happen in this case
- g42gregory 4y ago
  And the fact that he does not even own that $4M house. And the people who live in that house does not even own it completely either, but instead lease (or some other financial arrangement) the house, only as long as they are employed at the owner of that house.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I heard people speculating his parents may not own the house, but I have a hard time believing that would be agreeable to the court (unless perhaps Standford is one of the signatories that remains anonymous, and why would they be?). Has this been confirmed? The only "news" source I found discussing this was also speculating, and was a right-wing political blog. Not a source I'm comfortable relying on (even if it had been a left-wing or centrist political blog). But I didn't look very hard; open to being corrected if someone has a good source on this.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless. What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" figure comes? Why are you assigning some special meaning to it? It's pulled out of the ass of the very same judge who granted SBF bail.
  - NullPrefix 4y ago
    Just saying "refuted" or "debunked" without actually refuting of debunking a claim makes it sound like you are trying to gaslight people. Would you care to provide these refutations that you speak of?
    - bbbbb5 4y ago
      If you read the last line of my previous comment you will find a short-form refutation. Here's a longer explanation by a former federal prosecutor, current criminal defence attorney https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-get-bail https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...
      - NullPrefix 4y ago
        Thanks for providing the actual refutation that you speak of. The refutation just reiterates the fact that he did not have to pay a $250M bond. Your refutation also mentions that the house bond isn't actually posted yet. Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman. Do you think SBF will have to pay 10% to someone based on $4M of the house value or $250M?
        bbbbb5 4y ago
        > Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman Bail bondsmen basically do not exist in federal courts. But sure, regular crooks generally don't end up in federal courts. I think that's probably where this confusion stems from.
landemva 4y ago
I suspect part of the reason he will plead to a middling sentence is because those in power don't want money laundering and political donations thoroughly exposed in court.

bbbbb5 4y ago

This seems like a particularly twisted take. Poor people get excessively long sentences so SBF should too? What a messed up line of thinking. A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included"

dns_snek 4y ago
Divide the amount of money his customers lost by the average hourly wage, then double it (as a punitive measure) to get the minimum prison time. 100+ years seems like a reasonable sentence in this case. Every dollar stolen/defrauded represents minutes of someone's life that they'll never get back.
mavelikara 4y ago
> A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included" How about "SBF getting an unreasonable sentence, hopefully, would be the catalyst of change towards every convicted criminal getting reasonable sentences"?
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  Accelerationism is also bad, yes. A rather nihilistic way of looking at things.

faangiq 4y ago

Book your flight pal the kid is gonna walk.

maxbond 4y ago
Before he was arrested, were you skeptical that he would be? If SBF gets, say, 10 years (a similar sentence to Holmes), what will you say then?