3 ms·
> There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction. Indeed, people go out of the fr
by JeremyNT 3y ago
> There are numerous counter-examples to this claim. In many cases, it's obvious because the cover-up is of a civil infraction.
Indeed, people go out of the frying pan and into the fire all the time.
I think the kernel of truth in the parent post is that the subjects might genuinely believe that the revelation of the original "crime" alone would be impossible to recover from, so they might as well go all in on trying to cover it up.
So, the "marginal cost" of additional penalties from a failed coverup just doesn't seem all that high given the potential upside of a successful coverup.
- fbdab103 3y agoI probably watch too much popular media, but I am only thinking of bigger crimes where it seems like the rational choice is to attempt a coverup. Murder? Check. Stealing a Snicker's bar? Probably just leave the evidence in place. What is the threshold where you have to make the call? White-collar crimes feel the only place where you could make the argument that further action on the scene is likely to leave behind more evidence.
- zer00eyz 3y ago>White-collar crimes feel the only place where you could make the argument that further action on the scene is likely to leave behind more evidence. Nixon tapes, Iran Contra paper shredding, Enron paper shredding (we got Sarbanes Oxley out of that.) There are plenty of places where further action likely prevented far far worse things. I think white collar crime is harder now, as evidenced by recent political scandals (fucking up your secure messaging app, bungling PDF's). I dont know of any one who has the technical acumen to fully cover their tracks.