3 ms·

Yes, it is normal. I was talking about the method of counting. I suppose one has to pick something, and the number of checks written is as good as any other met

Yes, it is normal. I was talking about the method of counting. I suppose one has to pick something, and the number of checks written is as good as any other metric. I do think that it is a little disanalogous to speeding because it is the same thing being concealed each time. Also, to be clear, I was not making a definitive normative judgment. I was more pointing out the interesting nature of how what seems to me to be an ongoing act of deception gets charged, and how it conflicted somewhat with my intuitions.

Timon3 4y ago
I see how it can conflict, and I don't know how this kind of stuff would usually be charged. I'd be interested to hear more about why the speeding example is different for you, if you want to take the time to explain :) otherwise feel free to ignore! > I do think that it is a little disanalogous to speeding because it is the same thing being concealed each time. Speeding is also kind of the same thing every time, right? Like, say you speed every morning on your way to work for a month straight. Is that different from e.g. paying somebody for months at a time, and if so, how?
- stephendause 4y ago
  So when you are speeding, you are endangering people and property on the road. The amount of danger is proportional to the time you spend speeding among other things. With the falsification of business records, the situation does not seem as clear-cut. It is wrong because it is preventing the public or other relevant parties from having access to accurate information. I don't know if one can really make a formula to calculate how much damage is done by a given falsification, but I personally do not think I would include the number of checks or (probably) the number of invoices written in that formula. The method of payment seems mostly incidental and not essential to the wrongness of the crime. (I include the number of payments as part of the method of payment.) If this does not clear up my position, feel free to let me know. There is more I could write to flesh it out, but I don't know if that's necessary or if it'd be overkill =)
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Look at it this way: the more effort you spend trying to cover up your crime, the more likely it is you're going to get away with it. Therefore, when crimes are discovered where people went to great lengths to cover them up, they must be charged more aggressively to act as a deterrent for people who aspire to spend a lot of effort falsifying business records.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    I think one of the key differences is that the argument here is that each falsification is separate from the other ones. Which differs from say the situation where somebody gets charged with Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Possession of a gravity knife, and Battery. That scenario it's really one act (killing somebody with a gravity knife) that becomes 4 counts. And it feels to me a bit like misjustice to charge somebody with 4 counts as opposed to the worst one. However, if you write 10 fake checks and cash them it seems to be perfectly reasonable to charge you with 10 counts of fake check writing.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      The problem is double jeopardy. There are circumstances where you might not be guilty of the worst one, but could be guilty of the lesser charge. For example, you might not be guilty of the murder, but could be guilty of all of the other charges. If you're found not guilty, they can't re-try you on the other charges. So they charge all of the possible charges at once -- including charges that would be logically incompatible -- and let the jury decide which ones apply. The judge has some leeway in deciding whether your punishment should be four separate charges added up, or less than that, depending on state law. They can also have you serve you sentences "concurrently", which has a kind of elegance: if you're serving four sentences for the same action, you serve all four at once, which amounts to spending as much time in jail as the maximum.

Timon3 4y ago

I see how it can conflict, and I don't know how this kind of stuff would usually be charged. I'd be interested to hear more about why the speeding example is different for you, if you want to take the time to explain :) otherwise feel free to ignore! > I do think that it is a little disanalogous to speeding because it is the same thing being concealed each time. Speeding is also kind of the same thing every time, right? Like, say you speed every morning on your way to work for a month straight. Is that different from e.g. paying somebody for months at a time, and if so, how?

stephendause 4y ago
So when you are speeding, you are endangering people and property on the road. The amount of danger is proportional to the time you spend speeding among other things. With the falsification of business records, the situation does not seem as clear-cut. It is wrong because it is preventing the public or other relevant parties from having access to accurate information. I don't know if one can really make a formula to calculate how much damage is done by a given falsification, but I personally do not think I would include the number of checks or (probably) the number of invoices written in that formula. The method of payment seems mostly incidental and not essential to the wrongness of the crime. (I include the number of payments as part of the method of payment.) If this does not clear up my position, feel free to let me know. There is more I could write to flesh it out, but I don't know if that's necessary or if it'd be overkill =)
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Look at it this way: the more effort you spend trying to cover up your crime, the more likely it is you're going to get away with it. Therefore, when crimes are discovered where people went to great lengths to cover them up, they must be charged more aggressively to act as a deterrent for people who aspire to spend a lot of effort falsifying business records.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I think one of the key differences is that the argument here is that each falsification is separate from the other ones. Which differs from say the situation where somebody gets charged with Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Possession of a gravity knife, and Battery. That scenario it's really one act (killing somebody with a gravity knife) that becomes 4 counts. And it feels to me a bit like misjustice to charge somebody with 4 counts as opposed to the worst one. However, if you write 10 fake checks and cash them it seems to be perfectly reasonable to charge you with 10 counts of fake check writing.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    The problem is double jeopardy. There are circumstances where you might not be guilty of the worst one, but could be guilty of the lesser charge. For example, you might not be guilty of the murder, but could be guilty of all of the other charges. If you're found not guilty, they can't re-try you on the other charges. So they charge all of the possible charges at once -- including charges that would be logically incompatible -- and let the jury decide which ones apply. The judge has some leeway in deciding whether your punishment should be four separate charges added up, or less than that, depending on state law. They can also have you serve you sentences "concurrently", which has a kind of elegance: if you're serving four sentences for the same action, you serve all four at once, which amounts to spending as much time in jail as the maximum.