4 ms·

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 in

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.
e40 3y ago
Dan White was out in 5 for killing two people. In 1979. The infamous Twinkie defense.
olliej 3y ago
We frame SBF's crime as "just non violent fraud", but his fraud was targeted at people's retirement funds and life savings, so for many victims in the best case they lost any hope for the future - it's literally the difference between retiring and being forced to work for the rest of your life (that's what happened to many teachers post enron), and at worst it's a well established pattern that kind of loss results in suicide. To me I feel you could make a strong argument for that being at least manslaughter if not murder (as I understand it, any death that occurs as the result of a criminal act is considered murder, and suicide as a result of fraud seems to fit that bill to me). Framing this kind of crime as "non-violent" and so not deserving of a severe penalty is not far removed from "saying stealing that cars brake lines was non-violent so it's unfair to severely penalize the criminal just because of the later outcome"

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.

e40 3y ago

Dan White was out in 5 for killing two people. In 1979. The infamous Twinkie defense.

olliej 3y ago

We frame SBF's crime as "just non violent fraud", but his fraud was targeted at people's retirement funds and life savings, so for many victims in the best case they lost any hope for the future - it's literally the difference between retiring and being forced to work for the rest of your life (that's what happened to many teachers post enron), and at worst it's a well established pattern that kind of loss results in suicide. To me I feel you could make a strong argument for that being at least manslaughter if not murder (as I understand it, any death that occurs as the result of a criminal act is considered murder, and suicide as a result of fraud seems to fit that bill to me). Framing this kind of crime as "non-violent" and so not deserving of a severe penalty is not far removed from "saying stealing that cars brake lines was non-violent so it's unfair to severely penalize the criminal just because of the later outcome"