5 ms·

As much as I despise the guy I agree that 100 years for stealing some money, even a lot of it, is grotesque. Particularly considering that people who routinely

by ein0p 3y ago

As much as I despise the guy I agree that 100 years for stealing some money, even a lot of it, is grotesque. Particularly considering that people who routinely pilfer orders of magnitude more never see the inside of a jail cell in this country. Give him a tenner and ban him from trading for life.

WXLCKNO 3y ago
Stealing that amount of money must have affected a ton of people, I imagine it's possible some committed suicided, ruined their relationships, lost other important things in their life etc. It's not just stealing some money and the other people who steal even more should also get similar sentences.
- ein0p 3y ago
  “Imagine/possible” is insufficient reason for an effective life sentence even for a person as repugnant as SBF. I’d hope that if I end up in court, “imagining” things about me won’t be enough and hard evidence would be required. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty much the opposite of an SBF sympathizer, but still, it is my opinion that stealing money should not get one a life sentence.
gizmo 3y ago
SBF defrauded his investors/gamblers to the tune of billions. Bigger than Madoff. He intentionally tried to evade regulators by splitting his business into a dozen shell corporations and by operating from Hong Kong and the Bahamas. He intended to break the law from day 1. Up to 7 years is what people get for grand larceny, for instance stealing a $1200 TV. 5 to 15 years you get for grand larceny in the second degree, for instance stealing a $50,000 car. I don't know what the right punishment for SBF is, but I'm pretty sure what he did is worse than stealing a car, by several orders of magnitude.
- ein0p 3y ago
  You’re defeating the very point you’re trying to make: 7 years for a TV is most definitely “grotesque” as well.
  - stubish 3y ago
    What is the correct maximum time for stealing a $1200 TV? Say the large screen shared by all the orphans so your friends can video you sniffing coke off and then running it over it in your truck, before you got arrested at the next orphanage, and abused the judge at trial rather than show remorse? Mandatory sentencing is grotesque, as would judges be who unjustifiably hand out maximums because they are having a bad day. But the ranges are there for a reason, allowing a judge to apply judgement.
    - ein0p 3y ago
      Idk, a few months and pay back the cost of the item? 7 years? It’s grotesque
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  Most convicted murders don’t even get a 100 year sentence. I agree that 5 years is soft but regardless of the scale of the finances involved 100 years is an incredibly severe sentence for what is ultimately a nonviolent crime. Most people who have actually killed a human being with their own hands get a chance at parole after 20-35 years.
  - olliej 3y ago
    And plenty of people have life sentences for non violent crimes that don’t even involve theft.
    - DoughnutHole 3y ago
      And that’s generally an awful failure of justice.
      - olliej 3y ago
        Oh absolutely, but I realized another way to think about SBF's sentence: Imagine this scenario: 1. Scammer defrauds a person for $$$ 2. Scammer is caught 3. Scammer goes to jail 4. Scammer gets out 5. Scammer goes back to step 1 vs 1. Scammer defrauds 5 people <repeat the same sequence as above and then return to defrauding 5 people> vs 1. Scammer defrauds 50 people until you get to thousands of people and companies a la SBF The first case of one scam at a time will end up spending more time in jail than SBF despite defrauding far fewer people. Is that fair/just? We have plenty of other crimes where we consider the penalty for many crimes at once to be the same (if not worse) than count * penalty, so it's not just.
  - gizmo 3y ago
    Financial crimes destroy lives as well. I think there is a double standard here where people want to go easy on highly educated people who destroy lives with computers. Violent criminals on the other hand are seen as monsters beyond redemption. I'm in favor of a criminal justice system that is less about retribution and more about rehabilitation. But SBF isn't anywhere near the top of the list of people who got unfairly harsh punishments, not even if he gets that 100 year sentence. In a different -- and better -- criminal justice system SBF wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life behind bars. But in the current system he should, or it would be yet another exception for a rich and highly connected guy, which is also a type of injustice.
RandomBacon 3y ago
Money represents the time out of people's lives that they spent to earn that money. He didn't steal just money - people worked and sacrificed time out of their lives to earn that money. We should continue to try and catch and give consequences to the people we can, else how many more people will join the ranks of those who already do pilfer.

by ein0p 3y ago

WXLCKNO 3y ago

Stealing that amount of money must have affected a ton of people, I imagine it's possible some committed suicided, ruined their relationships, lost other important things in their life etc. It's not just stealing some money and the other people who steal even more should also get similar sentences.

ein0p 3y ago
“Imagine/possible” is insufficient reason for an effective life sentence even for a person as repugnant as SBF. I’d hope that if I end up in court, “imagining” things about me won’t be enough and hard evidence would be required. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty much the opposite of an SBF sympathizer, but still, it is my opinion that stealing money should not get one a life sentence.

gizmo 3y ago

SBF defrauded his investors/gamblers to the tune of billions. Bigger than Madoff. He intentionally tried to evade regulators by splitting his business into a dozen shell corporations and by operating from Hong Kong and the Bahamas. He intended to break the law from day 1. Up to 7 years is what people get for grand larceny, for instance stealing a $1200 TV. 5 to 15 years you get for grand larceny in the second degree, for instance stealing a $50,000 car. I don't know what the right punishment for SBF is, but I'm pretty sure what he did is worse than stealing a car, by several orders of magnitude.

ein0p 3y ago
You’re defeating the very point you’re trying to make: 7 years for a TV is most definitely “grotesque” as well.
- stubish 3y ago
  What is the correct maximum time for stealing a $1200 TV? Say the large screen shared by all the orphans so your friends can video you sniffing coke off and then running it over it in your truck, before you got arrested at the next orphanage, and abused the judge at trial rather than show remorse? Mandatory sentencing is grotesque, as would judges be who unjustifiably hand out maximums because they are having a bad day. But the ranges are there for a reason, allowing a judge to apply judgement.
  - ein0p 3y ago
    Idk, a few months and pay back the cost of the item? 7 years? It’s grotesque
DoughnutHole 3y ago
Most convicted murders don’t even get a 100 year sentence. I agree that 5 years is soft but regardless of the scale of the finances involved 100 years is an incredibly severe sentence for what is ultimately a nonviolent crime. Most people who have actually killed a human being with their own hands get a chance at parole after 20-35 years.
- olliej 3y ago
  And plenty of people have life sentences for non violent crimes that don’t even involve theft.
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    And that’s generally an awful failure of justice.
    - olliej 3y ago
      Oh absolutely, but I realized another way to think about SBF's sentence: Imagine this scenario: 1. Scammer defrauds a person for $$$ 2. Scammer is caught 3. Scammer goes to jail 4. Scammer gets out 5. Scammer goes back to step 1 vs 1. Scammer defrauds 5 people <repeat the same sequence as above and then return to defrauding 5 people> vs 1. Scammer defrauds 50 people until you get to thousands of people and companies a la SBF The first case of one scam at a time will end up spending more time in jail than SBF despite defrauding far fewer people. Is that fair/just? We have plenty of other crimes where we consider the penalty for many crimes at once to be the same (if not worse) than count * penalty, so it's not just.
- gizmo 3y ago
  Financial crimes destroy lives as well. I think there is a double standard here where people want to go easy on highly educated people who destroy lives with computers. Violent criminals on the other hand are seen as monsters beyond redemption. I'm in favor of a criminal justice system that is less about retribution and more about rehabilitation. But SBF isn't anywhere near the top of the list of people who got unfairly harsh punishments, not even if he gets that 100 year sentence. In a different -- and better -- criminal justice system SBF wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life behind bars. But in the current system he should, or it would be yet another exception for a rich and highly connected guy, which is also a type of injustice.

RandomBacon 3y ago

Money represents the time out of people's lives that they spent to earn that money. He didn't steal just money - people worked and sacrificed time out of their lives to earn that money. We should continue to try and catch and give consequences to the people we can, else how many more people will join the ranks of those who already do pilfer.