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

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"