4 ms·

If I found my bank account empty I would rather that the thief got away without punishment than sending the thief to jail for 67 years. I suspect many if not m

by flexie 13y ago

If I found my bank account empty I would rather that the thief got away without punishment than sending the thief to jail for 67 years. I suspect many if not most of the victims would feel the same. There is a real consideration to make to victims who don't want to be part of or reason for any cruel punishments.

arkades 13y ago
I suspect not. Most people - especially in America these days - live in tenuous circumstances, and "[finding] my bank account empty" would quite literally ruin their lives. For most people, that would be many times the provocation needed for them to feel justified in ruining a thief's life in exchange.
- phreanix 13y ago
  You realize of course that bank accounts are insured? Editing bec I can't reply somehow: The case you have was "tenuous circumstances" I myself have experienced having my account cleaned out of a couple of thousand dollars (stolen/compromised ATM), and the bank had my funds back in 3 days. Pretty sure I won't be ruined in that time frame. Anybody who has 250k in the bank isn't living in tenuous Circumstances.
  - arkades 13y ago
    Not quite... FDIC requires the government to pay you back for the insured (250k) amount but sets no timetable for this repayment. Simply, "as soon as possible." I've had several attorneys (that's what I get for marrying one) tell me explicitly that although the official FDIC policy is "as soon as possible" - which, granted, if you're a single point of failure (i.e., a small local bank) can be as soon as a few days - can be extended effectively indefinitely in cases where, for instance, a major bank fails, or several major banks are robbed concurrently. Granted, you could sue for this, since you could argue that perhaps they're not moving as fast as they can be, but at that point you're not going to have the money to sue them with. Now, if you have a solid job and money across several accounts under banks that are orthogonal with respect to being swindled, hey, you're OK. You'll hold out for the eventual repayment. If, on the other hand, you're in the same situation as most Americans these days, you had better hope that when you need the FDIC you're one of the exceptional few rather than part of a mob, because you could very well see your life derailed before you get your safety net back.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- flexie 13y ago
  It's just money. It would set the victims back (if the bank doesn't cover) but if they live in the first world and their life is ruined just because they lost all their money, they need perspective. They would still have all that really matters: family, food, shelter, access to education and healthcare, job, no physical injuries. It's just money.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    In the US, all of those things require money. It cost $10-20k to have our baby, food certainly isn't free and food stamps aren't enough to more than subsist in poor nutrition, we pay $15k year for healthcare that covers just me and the baby, I can't get to work without gas money, etc. If someone didn't have family to fall back in, an empty bank account would literally ruin the life of the average American.
    - flexie 13y ago
      Where I live in Europe (Bulgaria), the situation isn't that different from what it is in the US (I used to live in NYC with a baby and health care expenses similar to what you mention). Here, the banks offer very limited credits, expecially to foreigners like me. Public health care and education is not great, to put it nicely. My family depends on my income but a bankruptcy would mean that I would lose my license to practise my profession, and so too my income would take a dip. So, losing cash could mean that I would loose my profession, my home, car etc. There would be no more nice kindergartens, no nanny, no cleaning lady or private doctors for a long while. We would eat less, drink less, travel less etc. But that doesn't mean that my life would be ruined.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - arkades 13y ago
        You would eat less, drink less, travel less. Americans that get cleaned out could easily end up without anything to eat, or drink, or (hah) travel. According to feedamerica.org, 16.1% of Americans (as of 2011) already live in food-insecure households. 15% live in poverty. If you're impoverished and being helped by the state - i.e., Social Security - your aid checks are going to be direct-deposited into that swindled / frozen-while-we're-fixing-things account. When you're living on a pittance, you know how rough it is to not have that pittance for a month or three? You're talking about eating less. You're talking about still being able to travel. I'm talking about a country where roughly one-sixth of its population would literally starve if this happened to them.
- tomhodgins 13y ago
  If you hadn't mentioned which country you were referring to I wouldn't have assumed you were speaking of a first-world nation.

by flexie 13y ago

arkades 13y ago

I suspect not. Most people - especially in America these days - live in tenuous circumstances, and "[finding] my bank account empty" would quite literally ruin their lives. For most people, that would be many times the provocation needed for them to feel justified in ruining a thief's life in exchange.

phreanix 13y ago
You realize of course that bank accounts are insured? Editing bec I can't reply somehow: The case you have was "tenuous circumstances" I myself have experienced having my account cleaned out of a couple of thousand dollars (stolen/compromised ATM), and the bank had my funds back in 3 days. Pretty sure I won't be ruined in that time frame. Anybody who has 250k in the bank isn't living in tenuous Circumstances.
- arkades 13y ago
  Not quite... FDIC requires the government to pay you back for the insured (250k) amount but sets no timetable for this repayment. Simply, "as soon as possible." I've had several attorneys (that's what I get for marrying one) tell me explicitly that although the official FDIC policy is "as soon as possible" - which, granted, if you're a single point of failure (i.e., a small local bank) can be as soon as a few days - can be extended effectively indefinitely in cases where, for instance, a major bank fails, or several major banks are robbed concurrently. Granted, you could sue for this, since you could argue that perhaps they're not moving as fast as they can be, but at that point you're not going to have the money to sue them with. Now, if you have a solid job and money across several accounts under banks that are orthogonal with respect to being swindled, hey, you're OK. You'll hold out for the eventual repayment. If, on the other hand, you're in the same situation as most Americans these days, you had better hope that when you need the FDIC you're one of the exceptional few rather than part of a mob, because you could very well see your life derailed before you get your safety net back.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
flexie 13y ago
It's just money. It would set the victims back (if the bank doesn't cover) but if they live in the first world and their life is ruined just because they lost all their money, they need perspective. They would still have all that really matters: family, food, shelter, access to education and healthcare, job, no physical injuries. It's just money.
- rayiner 13y ago
  In the US, all of those things require money. It cost $10-20k to have our baby, food certainly isn't free and food stamps aren't enough to more than subsist in poor nutrition, we pay $15k year for healthcare that covers just me and the baby, I can't get to work without gas money, etc. If someone didn't have family to fall back in, an empty bank account would literally ruin the life of the average American.
  - flexie 13y ago
    Where I live in Europe (Bulgaria), the situation isn't that different from what it is in the US (I used to live in NYC with a baby and health care expenses similar to what you mention). Here, the banks offer very limited credits, expecially to foreigners like me. Public health care and education is not great, to put it nicely. My family depends on my income but a bankruptcy would mean that I would lose my license to practise my profession, and so too my income would take a dip. So, losing cash could mean that I would loose my profession, my home, car etc. There would be no more nice kindergartens, no nanny, no cleaning lady or private doctors for a long while. We would eat less, drink less, travel less etc. But that doesn't mean that my life would be ruined.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - arkades 13y ago
      You would eat less, drink less, travel less. Americans that get cleaned out could easily end up without anything to eat, or drink, or (hah) travel. According to feedamerica.org, 16.1% of Americans (as of 2011) already live in food-insecure households. 15% live in poverty. If you're impoverished and being helped by the state - i.e., Social Security - your aid checks are going to be direct-deposited into that swindled / frozen-while-we're-fixing-things account. When you're living on a pittance, you know how rough it is to not have that pittance for a month or three? You're talking about eating less. You're talking about still being able to travel. I'm talking about a country where roughly one-sixth of its population would literally starve if this happened to them.
tomhodgins 13y ago
If you hadn't mentioned which country you were referring to I wouldn't have assumed you were speaking of a first-world nation.