5 ms·

Sounds like a "them problem". If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent.

by mway 2y ago

paulcole 2y ago
I mean it’s not a them problem if they just can’t afford to pay it. What are you going to do, rat on your employer to get money from them they know they can’t pay so they just go out of business and you lose your job?
- mway 2y ago
  I mean, yeah. It's still a them problem, because they can choose to engage or not engage in those practices while knowing the consequences. What are you going to do, never penalize companies when it might hurt their bottom line? Just because they can't pay it doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions. That would be like saying that a person can't be fined because they don't have the money. AFAIK the judicial system will happily levy costs on you that you can't afford, and it is 100% a "you problem".
drstewart 2y ago
>If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is why I don't understand people who are against the death penalty and punishing mandatory minimum sentences. As you correctly point out, harsh retribution is a good deterrent.
- majewsky 2y ago
  Because the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis, whereas economic decisions of a corporation absolutely are.
  - thunky 2y ago
    > the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis Really? I thought death penalty is typically reserved for premeditated acts where the criminal did actually think it through.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > where the criminal did actually think it through Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. We're just basically saying, "Anybody would know that they shouldn't kill somebody and it seems like they probably thought about killing this person before they did it." I doubt there's going to be a stat that satisfies you here, but this one is interesting: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates... I haven't ever seen non-anecdotal evidence (flimsy or otherwise) that makes me think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
      - thunky 2y ago
        > Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. Sure we can, based on their actions. For example, we know that the guy that killed 60 people in Vegas planned it out ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Preparation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Prepar.... I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. It probably didn't in this case since the guy killed himself. Although he may have preferred death to a life in prison.
        paulcole 2y ago
        Congrats on picking the most extreme example possible. What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? How will you know if he had thought about it for a while or just snapped? Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not. But if there's not how can you be confident in whether it was planned? > I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. Good, because it doesn't.
        thunky 2y ago
        I never said we know in every instance. And the death penalty isn't applied in every instance either. > What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? > Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not Right, and in this court can choose not to execute him based on this uncertainty.
- taurath 2y ago
  Look up the prison population vis a vis mandatory minimums and tell me its been a good deterrent. Maybe what drives crime is independent of how much deterrent there is!
arp242 2y ago
Just prosecute individuals making these kind of decisions. Currently you can get away with almost all white-collar crime as he company picks up the bill. Only the most outrageous of the outrageous ever ends up being prosecuted, and even that doesn't always happen. Much of this tomfoolery will quickly end if you actually start holding people accountable. Giving some corporation a fine is not that.

Sounds like a "them problem". If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent.

by mway 2y ago

Sounds like a "them problem". If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent.

I mean it’s not a them problem if they just can’t afford to pay it. What are you going to do, rat on your employer to get money from them they know they can’t pay so they just go out of business and you lose your job?

mway 2y ago
I mean, yeah. It's still a them problem, because they can choose to engage or not engage in those practices while knowing the consequences. What are you going to do, never penalize companies when it might hurt their bottom line? Just because they can't pay it doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions. That would be like saying that a person can't be fined because they don't have the money. AFAIK the judicial system will happily levy costs on you that you can't afford, and it is 100% a "you problem".

drstewart 2y ago

>If it weren't punitive, it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is why I don't understand people who are against the death penalty and punishing mandatory minimum sentences. As you correctly point out, harsh retribution is a good deterrent.

majewsky 2y ago
Because the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis, whereas economic decisions of a corporation absolutely are.
- thunky 2y ago
  > the actions that lead to death penalties are usually committed without a calm and collected risk-benefit analysis Really? I thought death penalty is typically reserved for premeditated acts where the criminal did actually think it through.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > where the criminal did actually think it through Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. We're just basically saying, "Anybody would know that they shouldn't kill somebody and it seems like they probably thought about killing this person before they did it." I doubt there's going to be a stat that satisfies you here, but this one is interesting: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates... I haven't ever seen non-anecdotal evidence (flimsy or otherwise) that makes me think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through. Sure we can, based on their actions. For example, we know that the guy that killed 60 people in Vegas planned it out ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Preparation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Prepar.... I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. It probably didn't in this case since the guy killed himself. Although he may have preferred death to a life in prison.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        Congrats on picking the most extreme example possible. What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? How will you know if he had thought about it for a while or just snapped? Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not. But if there's not how can you be confident in whether it was planned? > I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. Good, because it doesn't.
        thunky 2y ago
        I never said we know in every instance. And the death penalty isn't applied in every instance either. > What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? > Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not Right, and in this court can choose not to execute him based on this uncertainty.
taurath 2y ago
Look up the prison population vis a vis mandatory minimums and tell me its been a good deterrent. Maybe what drives crime is independent of how much deterrent there is!

arp242 2y ago

Just prosecute individuals making these kind of decisions. Currently you can get away with almost all white-collar crime as he company picks up the bill. Only the most outrageous of the outrageous ever ends up being prosecuted, and even that doesn't always happen. Much of this tomfoolery will quickly end if you actually start holding people accountable. Giving some corporation a fine is not that.