3 ms·

That hypothesis comes up repeatedly, but I imagine it would hinge on whether or not judges would say to themselves, "he's too stupid to jail". IANAL, but I beli

That hypothesis comes up repeatedly, but I imagine it would hinge on whether or not judges would say to themselves, "he's too stupid to jail". IANAL, but I believe judgement is based on whether or not you did "it", whatever "it" might be. Then at sentencing a judge could use "stupid" as a mitigating factor. For example, "normally you'd get 20 years, but because you're stupid..." But I can not emphasize enough that IANAL, and this is just (as with most folks, I would guess) something I pulled out of my butt. Based on what little interaction I've had with the U. S. justice system, man, I sure wouldn't let the outcome rest on the judge's view of my intelligence, though.

munk-a 4y ago
I believe the above post was mostly in jest but just to clarify - to qualify for any sort of lighter sentencing you'd need to demonstrate a far more impactful intellectual disability. Idiots are everywhere in society - there are idiot billionaires, idiot crypto bros and idiots that you pass on the street everyday. Normal idiocy is not a defense - otherwise it probably would've been significantly easier for Elon Musk to back out of the acquisition of Twitter.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  My (albeit limited) understanding is that if SBF's lawyers can convince the jury that he was simply very incompetent that would be better (still a crime, but a less severe one) than if he intentionally defrauded customers. Similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter. I don't think he's actually trying to bolster his defense though, I think he's largely an idiot and used to getting away with almost anything with few/no consequences.
  - brasic 4y ago
    Yeah, playing the fool is much more likely to be an attempt to influence the jury’s view of mens rea. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecution-of-sam-bankman-fried-could-rise-or-fall-on-intent-11671065127 https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecution-of-sam-bankman-frie...
- Eduard 4y ago
  Additionally, a narcist can be too proud for exploiting a "I did a stupid mistake" defense.

munk-a 4y ago

I believe the above post was mostly in jest but just to clarify - to qualify for any sort of lighter sentencing you'd need to demonstrate a far more impactful intellectual disability. Idiots are everywhere in society - there are idiot billionaires, idiot crypto bros and idiots that you pass on the street everyday. Normal idiocy is not a defense - otherwise it probably would've been significantly easier for Elon Musk to back out of the acquisition of Twitter.

cmeacham98 4y ago
My (albeit limited) understanding is that if SBF's lawyers can convince the jury that he was simply very incompetent that would be better (still a crime, but a less severe one) than if he intentionally defrauded customers. Similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter. I don't think he's actually trying to bolster his defense though, I think he's largely an idiot and used to getting away with almost anything with few/no consequences.
- brasic 4y ago
  Yeah, playing the fool is much more likely to be an attempt to influence the jury’s view of mens rea. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecution-of-sam-bankman-fried-could-rise-or-fall-on-intent-11671065127 https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecution-of-sam-bankman-frie...
Eduard 4y ago
Additionally, a narcist can be too proud for exploiting a "I did a stupid mistake" defense.