5 ms·

Maybe I'm a big old softie, but it seems to me that locking somebody up in a cell for 100 years for (non-violently) stealing money is draconian..

strikelaserclaw 4y ago
i mean, fraud like this can cause people to kill themselves. So it really depends on whether you believe 100 years in a cell for "murder" is justifiable.
- berberous 4y ago
  Not sure how true it, but there were news stories of people actually killing themselves from Lina’s collapse.
- yowzadave 4y ago
  > it really depends on whether you believe 100 years in a cell for "murder" is justifiable. No. Just because one thing can in certain cases lead to another does not mean they are morally (or legally) equivalent.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    It did lead to that though? You can say “shooting someone can in certain cases lead to them dying”. We punish based on whether or not they actually died.
vkou 4y ago
We hang an admiral every few decades to encourage the others. And in this case, the others need a lot of encouragement. Crypto grift is bigger than ever. And maybe I'm a big softie, but I feel a lot less sympathetic for someone stealing billions from retail investors (Stupid as many of them are), than I am for someone stealing hundreds of dollars from a store to feed their meth fix. This guy didn't 'need' to steal in any sense of the word.
m3kw9 4y ago
Depends how he did it because a lot of people got ruined
latchkey 4y ago
I don't know, I think that he has blood on his hands. People literally jumped out of buildings because of this scam. The 100 years thing is kind of sensational... just say 'for life.' https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4551502 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4551502
- lordofgibbons 4y ago
  I think it's extremely sad what happened to that person, but we shouldn't be handing out sentences to people based on the actions/mental-health of other people they don't control. There was just a story out about a person taking their life after a chatbot told them to. We wouldn't/shouldn't be charging the creators of that chatbot should we? And I agree, the "100 years" is sensational, but still, to be locked up for the remainder of your natural life over stealing money just seems wrong to me. Everyone makes mistakes.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    What would you suggest as a punishment for this mistake?
    - abudabi123 4y ago
      Less than the two years given to the rapist who hired the model.
mjd 4y ago
When news articles say "faces 100 years in prison", they are often talking about the maximum possible sentence for all the charges. Such sentences are rarely imposed.
WFHRenaissance 4y ago
We shouldn't punish risky innovation like this. I actually fail to see the fraud here.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  The financial risk was never Do Kwon's. He socialized that risk to every dumb fucker he swindled. The criminal risk was always his, he just hoped he could disappear or talk his way out of it.
redox99 4y ago
> for (non-violently) stealing money is draconian.. It isn't even non-violently stealing money like breaking into your house when you are on vacation, or hacking a bank or something like that. People just willingly bought a shitcoin which then went to 0.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Giving life or effective life to non-violent actors sends a clear message to criminals that they're just as well off to violently resist arrest, as their life is forfeit anyway. Seems like a poorly thought out policy for the enforcers.
  - decremental 4y ago
    There is no messaging problem here. There is no overlap between the type of person who creates elaborate crypto scams and the 80 IQ no impulse control types who violently resist arrest.
xiphias2 4y ago
My grandmother died from stroke after she let some people in to give them water and they stole her money (even though it wasn't much money, maybe 1 month of pension, and we could support her if she needed it). People feel significantly more emotional distress from losing money (especially from stealing) than not getting / earning it. The amount of harm caused by these people is inconceivable.
pcurve 4y ago
I would agree with you if it the loss was smaller. But he wiped out $40 billion, and it was no accident. He made a lot of malicious and negligent decisions that led up to the bubble and the demise.
jfengel 4y ago
The whole notion of incarceration is kind of weird. It doesn't give anybody their money back. It failed to scare this guy off from doing it. In a lot of cases it'll cost more than the criminal actually stole. There isn't any way to be "fair" in sentencing, because it's hard to compare harms. This guy stole a lot of money, and therefore "deserves" a lot of prison time -- to the degree that that means anything at all, and I'm not sure it does. Much of it seems to be inspired by some sort of karmic sense of balancing the books. People want to see punishment, and have decided that "keeping him living in an unpleasant, lonely place" is a retribution that is cruel enough but not too cruel. We could completely reconsider the idea of what "punishment" is all about, but I don't know if any of the alternatives are really all that much better. There's no way this guy could ever really make restitution. I doubt there's a decent way to put him to "work", if his main life skill is about ripping people off. Nobody should ever trust him again, even if we put a bunch of effort into instilling some kind of moral code. So... I don't like any of the alternatives. The crime is done and no good thing is going to come of it. Following the law is probably the least-worst option. And there's no way to change the law that would be widely agreed to be less-worse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  More a philosophical question on whether jail is for punishment or rehabilitation. Clearly the impact and scale of this crime was large and far reaching, and negatively impacted society more than most murders would have. Thus from a punishment perspective, sentencing should be harsher than lesser crimes. From a rehabilitation perspective... is the offender likely to commit a similar crime again? What harm does he possess to society going forward? In most of these kind of white collar crime cases, I'd guess the answer is "not much risk". Reputation being tarnished is enough to prevent similar scale fraud a second time. Though of course could operate through proxies/hidden channels. I'd be interested to see the recidivism rate for different types of white collar crime. Some people believe more in punishment, some in rehabilitation. If you look at it strictly mathematically/economically... the "best" outcome for society is likely to optimize for minimizing future negative externalities... so the people who pose little future threat should get shorter sentences. And this is somewhat how it works in practice in many cases (sentencing differentials for white collar/rich vs blue collar/poor).
tiedieconderoga 4y ago
Calling large-scale fraud "non-violent" is needlessly pedantic, considering the vast harm that it causes. >"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!" >"No, you have not. But you have stolen, embezzled, defrauded and swindled without discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You have ruined businesses and destroyed jobs. When banks fail, it is seldom bankers who starve. Your actions have taken money from those who had little enough to begin with. In a myriad small ways you have hastened the deaths of many. You do not know them. You did not see them bleed. But you snatched bread from their mouths and tore clothes from their backs. For sport, Mr Lipvig. For sport. For the joy of the game. Going Postal was not one of Terry Pratchett's stronger books, but it's a good point nevertheless.

strikelaserclaw 4y ago

i mean, fraud like this can cause people to kill themselves. So it really depends on whether you believe 100 years in a cell for "murder" is justifiable.

berberous 4y ago
Not sure how true it, but there were news stories of people actually killing themselves from Lina’s collapse.
yowzadave 4y ago
> it really depends on whether you believe 100 years in a cell for "murder" is justifiable. No. Just because one thing can in certain cases lead to another does not mean they are morally (or legally) equivalent.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  It did lead to that though? You can say “shooting someone can in certain cases lead to them dying”. We punish based on whether or not they actually died.

vkou 4y ago

We hang an admiral every few decades to encourage the others. And in this case, the others need a lot of encouragement. Crypto grift is bigger than ever. And maybe I'm a big softie, but I feel a lot less sympathetic for someone stealing billions from retail investors (Stupid as many of them are), than I am for someone stealing hundreds of dollars from a store to feed their meth fix. This guy didn't 'need' to steal in any sense of the word.

m3kw9 4y ago

Depends how he did it because a lot of people got ruined

latchkey 4y ago

I don't know, I think that he has blood on his hands. People literally jumped out of buildings because of this scam. The 100 years thing is kind of sensational... just say 'for life.' https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4551502 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4551502

lordofgibbons 4y ago
I think it's extremely sad what happened to that person, but we shouldn't be handing out sentences to people based on the actions/mental-health of other people they don't control. There was just a story out about a person taking their life after a chatbot told them to. We wouldn't/shouldn't be charging the creators of that chatbot should we? And I agree, the "100 years" is sensational, but still, to be locked up for the remainder of your natural life over stealing money just seems wrong to me. Everyone makes mistakes.
- latchkey 4y ago
  What would you suggest as a punishment for this mistake?
  - abudabi123 4y ago
    Less than the two years given to the rapist who hired the model.

mjd 4y ago

When news articles say "faces 100 years in prison", they are often talking about the maximum possible sentence for all the charges. Such sentences are rarely imposed.

WFHRenaissance 4y ago

We shouldn't punish risky innovation like this. I actually fail to see the fraud here.

sleepybrett 4y ago
The financial risk was never Do Kwon's. He socialized that risk to every dumb fucker he swindled. The criminal risk was always his, he just hoped he could disappear or talk his way out of it.

redox99 4y ago

> for (non-violently) stealing money is draconian.. It isn't even non-violently stealing money like breaking into your house when you are on vacation, or hacking a bank or something like that. People just willingly bought a shitcoin which then went to 0.

notch898a 4y ago
Giving life or effective life to non-violent actors sends a clear message to criminals that they're just as well off to violently resist arrest, as their life is forfeit anyway. Seems like a poorly thought out policy for the enforcers.
- decremental 4y ago
  There is no messaging problem here. There is no overlap between the type of person who creates elaborate crypto scams and the 80 IQ no impulse control types who violently resist arrest.

xiphias2 4y ago

My grandmother died from stroke after she let some people in to give them water and they stole her money (even though it wasn't much money, maybe 1 month of pension, and we could support her if she needed it). People feel significantly more emotional distress from losing money (especially from stealing) than not getting / earning it. The amount of harm caused by these people is inconceivable.

pcurve 4y ago

I would agree with you if it the loss was smaller. But he wiped out $40 billion, and it was no accident. He made a lot of malicious and negligent decisions that led up to the bubble and the demise.

jfengel 4y ago

The whole notion of incarceration is kind of weird. It doesn't give anybody their money back. It failed to scare this guy off from doing it. In a lot of cases it'll cost more than the criminal actually stole. There isn't any way to be "fair" in sentencing, because it's hard to compare harms. This guy stole a lot of money, and therefore "deserves" a lot of prison time -- to the degree that that means anything at all, and I'm not sure it does. Much of it seems to be inspired by some sort of karmic sense of balancing the books. People want to see punishment, and have decided that "keeping him living in an unpleasant, lonely place" is a retribution that is cruel enough but not too cruel. We could completely reconsider the idea of what "punishment" is all about, but I don't know if any of the alternatives are really all that much better. There's no way this guy could ever really make restitution. I doubt there's a decent way to put him to "work", if his main life skill is about ripping people off. Nobody should ever trust him again, even if we put a bunch of effort into instilling some kind of moral code. So... I don't like any of the alternatives. The crime is done and no good thing is going to come of it. Following the law is probably the least-worst option. And there's no way to change the law that would be widely agreed to be less-worse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adam_arthur 4y ago
More a philosophical question on whether jail is for punishment or rehabilitation. Clearly the impact and scale of this crime was large and far reaching, and negatively impacted society more than most murders would have. Thus from a punishment perspective, sentencing should be harsher than lesser crimes. From a rehabilitation perspective... is the offender likely to commit a similar crime again? What harm does he possess to society going forward? In most of these kind of white collar crime cases, I'd guess the answer is "not much risk". Reputation being tarnished is enough to prevent similar scale fraud a second time. Though of course could operate through proxies/hidden channels. I'd be interested to see the recidivism rate for different types of white collar crime. Some people believe more in punishment, some in rehabilitation. If you look at it strictly mathematically/economically... the "best" outcome for society is likely to optimize for minimizing future negative externalities... so the people who pose little future threat should get shorter sentences. And this is somewhat how it works in practice in many cases (sentencing differentials for white collar/rich vs blue collar/poor).

tiedieconderoga 4y ago

Calling large-scale fraud "non-violent" is needlessly pedantic, considering the vast harm that it causes. >"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!" >"No, you have not. But you have stolen, embezzled, defrauded and swindled without discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You have ruined businesses and destroyed jobs. When banks fail, it is seldom bankers who starve. Your actions have taken money from those who had little enough to begin with. In a myriad small ways you have hastened the deaths of many. You do not know them. You did not see them bleed. But you snatched bread from their mouths and tore clothes from their backs. For sport, Mr Lipvig. For sport. For the joy of the game. Going Postal was not one of Terry Pratchett's stronger books, but it's a good point nevertheless.