6 ms·

Pretty great example of Hacker News when the top comment is "They should have done more crime but in a different way."

mschuster91 3y ago
As long as those who are affected by some kind of loss are (reasonably) made whole, most legal systems won't give a flying f..k about anything.
- bumby 3y ago
  Tort/civil lawsuits are about being "made whole." Criminal lawsuits are not because they represent crimes against the state/society.
  - lokar 3y ago
    The state also brings civil actions that are not about damages or being made whole. See the ongoing business fraud case in NY against Trump.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      That one is because Trump didn't make whole anyone across his career. Not the IRS, not his creditors, not the countless people he and his various enterprises stiffed (e.g. the tradespeople who worked on the casinos [1][2]). There's so many people who Trump and his various enterprises left stuck with sometimes very huge bills that it's a miracle he didn't get dinged years ago. And that is why Trump is being on the receiving end of the stick at the moment... he forgot one crucial point: never make too many enemies in life because eventually they will team up to get their revenge on you. [1] https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2020/01/24/donald-trump-still-owes-money-to-contractors-who-built-taj-mahal-atlantic-city/4547037002/ https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/... [2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...
      - nojvek 3y ago
        The big question is whether he will plead guilty and/or the judge will convict him. In US, you can be rich and get away with a lot of crime and crookedness. If Trump does go to prison, that will make quite the news. Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable.
        oarsinsync 3y ago
        > Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable. That’s one way to look at it. Another way is to note that they’ve done a real good job of limiting their potential future options. They get to remain in power, or be exiled and live in hiding, or be dead? They’re unlikely to resign and get to live a quiet retirement, just as they’re unlikely to be jailed by their opponents?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Tort/civil lawsuits are about being "made whole." Only at the “modelling a cow as a perfectly thermoconducting sphere” level of analysis. Actual damages and preliminary injunctions to preserve a situation remediable by damages are about that, other parts of what happens in civil cases are often not. E.g., punitive damages are, as the name suggests, punitive, not compensatory.
    - bumby 3y ago
      I'm unsure I follow your "modeling as a cow" analogy. Usually, that's used to show the model does not adequately reflect reality. But that doesn't hold in tort cases. Compensatory damages are the majority, by a considerable margin. According to DOJ data[1]: - Punitive damages were awarded in only 5% of trials where the plaintiff won - It was lower for tort cases (3%) and higher for contract cases (8%) - It is lower in product liability and medical cases (1% each) Those findings show that the punitive damages awarded are both relatively rare and modest. A "spherical cow model" based on compensatory damages is probably still a very good model. [1] https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-punitive-damages-rare-reasonable-and-limited-2011 https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-punitive-damages...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Thing is, prosecutors don't want to waste their time. Someone who made whole those who lost money or other assets (or at least made a credible effort to do so) gets lower priority and lower sentencing over someone who just sharts on laws.
- matteoraso 3y ago
  Martin Shkreli did that, and the feds still arrested him.
  - csomar 3y ago
    He annoyed politicians. Free country, huh?
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      If by "annoyed politicians" you mean "bait and switched AIDS patients".
      - throwinway 3y ago
        He said the price increase would not affect patients directly- just insurance (can’t verify). But he would do livestreams where he said anyone without insurance or that had insurance that wouldn’t cover it could DM him and he would take care of it for them. One of my online friends was able to get the medication this way.
      - matteoraso 3y ago
        He wasn't arrested for raising the price of his drugs, though. He was arrested for financial fraud, but none of his victims actually lost money. Very odd case. https://web.archive.org/web/20170710014221/https://www.washingtonpost.com/web/20170710014221/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-fascinating-legal-argument-at-the-heart-of-the-martin-shkreli-pharma-bro-trial/2017/07/08/658507e0-6255-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.5fc075095552 https://web.archive.org/web/20170710014221/https://www.washi...
        bumby 3y ago
        Securities fraud is a criminal charge. It's not about someone receiving relief from some injury like a civil case. You can be charged criminally even everyone ends up better off; it's a crime against the state. Think about this: I hijack an airplane full of people but all I do is get them to their destination faster. Everyone is better off (i.e., no material injury occurred) but I assume you'd still think I should be charged, no? FWIW- Madoff used the same excuse that "nobody actually lost money." According to him, none of the principal was lost, it was just unrealized gains. Most people still think he should have been charged with fraud.
- bmelton 3y ago
  I believe Martin Shkrelli would disagree I think that (sadly) the key distinction in the American justice system has to do with how easily it is to justify your prosecution to the public. If you're wildly popular, you're probably able to get away with quite a lot. If you're wildly unpopular, it's probably pretty easy to get a conviction on any number of things.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    define justice... Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair. A society in which justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they "deserve" So, what do they deserve? It's up to a panel of peers to determine. Peers, mind you, that are representative of the society you live in. So in a sense, public outcry and court of public opinion can sway personal opinions on what is just and fair and determine what people deserve. I find the entire system malleable and ripe for corruption.
    - lowkeyoptimist 3y ago
      What system, in your world, is not malleable and ripe for corruption? In your world democracy would be the most malleable and corrupt while autocracy would be the least given the boundaries you laid out.
      - broken-kebab 3y ago
        In autocratic regimes justice is usually perverted from the top (comrade district secretary calls district judge to affect proceedings - in USSR it was informally known as "phone law"), in democracies you usually need to involve wider public pressure to achieve similar results. It's definitely makes democracy better, because to sway public opinion is costlier, more visible and at least partially deliberative endeavor. But legal justice is not moral justice in any political system, and there are always ways to at least nudge legal system in a way that is more convenient for some forces.
  - fennecbutt 3y ago
dev_0 3y ago
[dead]
MehghanLee 3y ago
[dead]
DANmode 3y ago
Considering an idea without agreeing with it might be one of the better modern definitions of curiosity.
- tarsinge 3y ago
  Considering an idea is about taking everything into account. The part where it’s illegal or morally reprehensible is essential to the discussion. Also if not communicated like here it can be understood as an opinion.
  - DANmode 3y ago
    I do not assume ill-intent of the other curious people here, and I think if you do, you're not following the guidelines (take the most charitable interpretation of what someone writes).
    - tarsinge 3y ago
      I’m not assuming ill-intent, I’m talking about the idea. Stating something is wrong or illegal seems essential to the discussion. It’s like if someone said “I should rob a bank”, I sure hope saying it’s illegal will be taken into account in their curiosity.
brnt 3y ago
Free and unrestrained insight into the ruthless and the sociopath minds is half the reason I come here.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- sofixa 3y ago
  Ah, thank you for putting words to describe why my gut feeling of morbid curiousity applies to HN like it does for air crash investigations.
Hamuko 3y ago
I don't think doing less crime was ever on the table for these guys.

As long as those who are affected by some kind of loss are (reasonably) made whole, most legal systems won't give a flying f..k about anything.

bumby 3y ago
Tort/civil lawsuits are about being "made whole." Criminal lawsuits are not because they represent crimes against the state/society.
- lokar 3y ago
  The state also brings civil actions that are not about damages or being made whole. See the ongoing business fraud case in NY against Trump.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    That one is because Trump didn't make whole anyone across his career. Not the IRS, not his creditors, not the countless people he and his various enterprises stiffed (e.g. the tradespeople who worked on the casinos [1][2]). There's so many people who Trump and his various enterprises left stuck with sometimes very huge bills that it's a miracle he didn't get dinged years ago. And that is why Trump is being on the receiving end of the stick at the moment... he forgot one crucial point: never make too many enemies in life because eventually they will team up to get their revenge on you. [1] https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2020/01/24/donald-trump-still-owes-money-to-contractors-who-built-taj-mahal-atlantic-city/4547037002/ https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/... [2] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/0...
    - nojvek 3y ago
      The big question is whether he will plead guilty and/or the judge will convict him. In US, you can be rich and get away with a lot of crime and crookedness. If Trump does go to prison, that will make quite the news. Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable.
      - oarsinsync 3y ago
        > Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable. That’s one way to look at it. Another way is to note that they’ve done a real good job of limiting their potential future options. They get to remain in power, or be exiled and live in hiding, or be dead? They’re unlikely to resign and get to live a quiet retirement, just as they’re unlikely to be jailed by their opponents?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Tort/civil lawsuits are about being "made whole." Only at the “modelling a cow as a perfectly thermoconducting sphere” level of analysis. Actual damages and preliminary injunctions to preserve a situation remediable by damages are about that, other parts of what happens in civil cases are often not. E.g., punitive damages are, as the name suggests, punitive, not compensatory.
  - bumby 3y ago
    I'm unsure I follow your "modeling as a cow" analogy. Usually, that's used to show the model does not adequately reflect reality. But that doesn't hold in tort cases. Compensatory damages are the majority, by a considerable margin. According to DOJ data[1]: - Punitive damages were awarded in only 5% of trials where the plaintiff won - It was lower for tort cases (3%) and higher for contract cases (8%) - It is lower in product liability and medical cases (1% each) Those findings show that the punitive damages awarded are both relatively rare and modest. A "spherical cow model" based on compensatory damages is probably still a very good model. [1] https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-punitive-damages-rare-reasonable-and-limited-2011 https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-punitive-damages...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Thing is, prosecutors don't want to waste their time. Someone who made whole those who lost money or other assets (or at least made a credible effort to do so) gets lower priority and lower sentencing over someone who just sharts on laws.
matteoraso 3y ago
Martin Shkreli did that, and the feds still arrested him.
- csomar 3y ago
  He annoyed politicians. Free country, huh?
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    If by "annoyed politicians" you mean "bait and switched AIDS patients".
    - throwinway 3y ago
      He said the price increase would not affect patients directly- just insurance (can’t verify). But he would do livestreams where he said anyone without insurance or that had insurance that wouldn’t cover it could DM him and he would take care of it for them. One of my online friends was able to get the medication this way.
    - matteoraso 3y ago
      He wasn't arrested for raising the price of his drugs, though. He was arrested for financial fraud, but none of his victims actually lost money. Very odd case. https://web.archive.org/web/20170710014221/https://www.washingtonpost.com/web/20170710014221/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-fascinating-legal-argument-at-the-heart-of-the-martin-shkreli-pharma-bro-trial/2017/07/08/658507e0-6255-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.5fc075095552 https://web.archive.org/web/20170710014221/https://www.washi...
      - bumby 3y ago
        Securities fraud is a criminal charge. It's not about someone receiving relief from some injury like a civil case. You can be charged criminally even everyone ends up better off; it's a crime against the state. Think about this: I hijack an airplane full of people but all I do is get them to their destination faster. Everyone is better off (i.e., no material injury occurred) but I assume you'd still think I should be charged, no? FWIW- Madoff used the same excuse that "nobody actually lost money." According to him, none of the principal was lost, it was just unrealized gains. Most people still think he should have been charged with fraud.
bmelton 3y ago
I believe Martin Shkrelli would disagree I think that (sadly) the key distinction in the American justice system has to do with how easily it is to justify your prosecution to the public. If you're wildly popular, you're probably able to get away with quite a lot. If you're wildly unpopular, it's probably pretty easy to get a conviction on any number of things.
- reactordev 3y ago
  define justice... Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair. A society in which justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they "deserve" So, what do they deserve? It's up to a panel of peers to determine. Peers, mind you, that are representative of the society you live in. So in a sense, public outcry and court of public opinion can sway personal opinions on what is just and fair and determine what people deserve. I find the entire system malleable and ripe for corruption.
  - lowkeyoptimist 3y ago
    What system, in your world, is not malleable and ripe for corruption? In your world democracy would be the most malleable and corrupt while autocracy would be the least given the boundaries you laid out.
    - broken-kebab 3y ago
      In autocratic regimes justice is usually perverted from the top (comrade district secretary calls district judge to affect proceedings - in USSR it was informally known as "phone law"), in democracies you usually need to involve wider public pressure to achieve similar results. It's definitely makes democracy better, because to sway public opinion is costlier, more visible and at least partially deliberative endeavor. But legal justice is not moral justice in any political system, and there are always ways to at least nudge legal system in a way that is more convenient for some forces.
- fennecbutt 3y ago

dev_0 3y ago

[dead]

MehghanLee 3y ago

[dead]

DANmode 3y ago

Considering an idea without agreeing with it might be one of the better modern definitions of curiosity.

tarsinge 3y ago
Considering an idea is about taking everything into account. The part where it’s illegal or morally reprehensible is essential to the discussion. Also if not communicated like here it can be understood as an opinion.
- DANmode 3y ago
  I do not assume ill-intent of the other curious people here, and I think if you do, you're not following the guidelines (take the most charitable interpretation of what someone writes).
  - tarsinge 3y ago
    I’m not assuming ill-intent, I’m talking about the idea. Stating something is wrong or illegal seems essential to the discussion. It’s like if someone said “I should rob a bank”, I sure hope saying it’s illegal will be taken into account in their curiosity.

brnt 3y ago

Free and unrestrained insight into the ruthless and the sociopath minds is half the reason I come here.

AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]
sofixa 3y ago
Ah, thank you for putting words to describe why my gut feeling of morbid curiousity applies to HN like it does for air crash investigations.

Hamuko 3y ago

I don't think doing less crime was ever on the table for these guys.