7 ms·

I posit white collar crime should carry more severe penalties than blue collar crime.

by o0-0o 12y ago

ryanlol 12y ago
Have you noticed that at least in the US, white collar crime already carries ridiculously high sentences compared to the rest of the world?
- o0-0o 12y ago
  That's not my point, but yeah since you mention it.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
The severity of the penalties is totally irrelevant if there is no enforcement and the existing penalties are quite sufficient if there is.
nitrogen 12y ago
This is an interesting perspective with which I am currently inclined to disagree. Could you provide more rationale to justify the idea that nonviolent crimes should be punished more severely than violent crimes?
- eropple 12y ago
  I'm not that poster, but people with more power should be held to account more strictly for abusing it. While there are noteworthy exceptions, violent crimes are (generally speaking) low-leverage crimes that rarely impact more than a handful of people, whereas the ramifications of even something as "non-violent" as this sort of fraud can be significantly more harmful to much bigger groups of people. (I am also of the opinion that corporate protections are largely bullshit and that executives and boards should be civilly and criminally liable for wrongdoings perpetuated by their companies. Probably the only way to make them act decently.)
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    It seems like a good idea at first glance, but how would you stop a bad actor from wroughting that system?
  - smsm42 12y ago
    These things are very hard to compare. If one steals $10 from every person in the US, he stole 3 bln. dollars. That's huge. However, mostly nobody's life has been seriously, permanently and unrecoverably affected - at least excepting some really untypical random occurrences. If one robs one family of all their possessions, or causes one person be permanently disabled, or dead, that is very grave permanent and unreparable consequences, even though it is for one or few persons only. Humanist morals dictates the latter is worse than the former, so should be punished harder. Of course, in real cases it all gets mixed and unclear, especially when also question of intent comes into discussion.
    - ebrenes 12y ago
      You're really sweeping under the rug a lot of people who would be impacted by having $10 taken away. I am certain >0 people would have checks bounce, payments declined, fees imposed on them. For many people $10 can be the difference between being able to afford rent, payment of utilities or other items that could cascade into affecting their life significantly. The poor are really susceptible to these type of accidents Also, about 60 million of the US population are below the age of 14 (which given you got 3 bln dollars from $10, I'm assuming you're taking the whole ~318 million population), that means many minors just lost $10 that to them would likely be more money than they ever had or be a significant amount of money. And that doesn't even go into other aspects of the theft, like the effects nationwide on everyone having money taken away from them. The erosion of confidence in the safety of their money. I posit to you a likely scenario of what you described. Imagine if everyone citizen in the US were issued a government mandated ID with an associated federally insured bank account. Now, the whole scenario becomes viable, where a hacker could steal $10 from every citizen in the U.S. Now, that would first create a huge debacle. It would most likely cause an immediate loss of trust in the online marketplace, cost probably billions of dollars in getting it fixed. It would end many people's careers, most likely lead to companies getting fined, economic stagnation depending on a cascade effect from a loss of confidence in markets. It's hardly a victimless crime. Sure, we could keep diminishing the amount to something ridiculous till we're maybe talking about stealing 1 cent. Which would still be a fairly juicy pay off of 3 million, and that would erase away many of my points or at least reduce their incidence significantly. I'm sure some people would miss payments or have other inconveniences affect them. Likewise, the theft would have repercussions on many people's lives. Even if I were to take the magical scenario of someone who magically made 1 cent disappear from everyone's wallet/bank account. That would still cause great impact and damage. "Are there more people like him with such magical powers?" I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have to look at the final magnitude not just the token value of the damage done per capita. And also look at the damage done by having affected so many people simultaneously.
- o0-0o 12y ago
  Sliding-scale fines (higher penalties for higher earners) is a good working model of this. E.g. if you make more money your speeding tickets cost more. I was suggesting that it could proven that white collar crimes are committed by higher earners, and therefore should carry heavier penalties.

I posit white collar crime should carry more severe penalties than blue collar crime.

by o0-0o 12y ago

I posit white collar crime should carry more severe penalties than blue collar crime.

Have you noticed that at least in the US, white collar crime already carries ridiculously high sentences compared to the rest of the world?

o0-0o 12y ago
That's not my point, but yeah since you mention it.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

The severity of the penalties is totally irrelevant if there is no enforcement and the existing penalties are quite sufficient if there is.

nitrogen 12y ago

This is an interesting perspective with which I am currently inclined to disagree. Could you provide more rationale to justify the idea that nonviolent crimes should be punished more severely than violent crimes?

eropple 12y ago
I'm not that poster, but people with more power should be held to account more strictly for abusing it. While there are noteworthy exceptions, violent crimes are (generally speaking) low-leverage crimes that rarely impact more than a handful of people, whereas the ramifications of even something as "non-violent" as this sort of fraud can be significantly more harmful to much bigger groups of people. (I am also of the opinion that corporate protections are largely bullshit and that executives and boards should be civilly and criminally liable for wrongdoings perpetuated by their companies. Probably the only way to make them act decently.)
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  It seems like a good idea at first glance, but how would you stop a bad actor from wroughting that system?
- smsm42 12y ago
  These things are very hard to compare. If one steals $10 from every person in the US, he stole 3 bln. dollars. That's huge. However, mostly nobody's life has been seriously, permanently and unrecoverably affected - at least excepting some really untypical random occurrences. If one robs one family of all their possessions, or causes one person be permanently disabled, or dead, that is very grave permanent and unreparable consequences, even though it is for one or few persons only. Humanist morals dictates the latter is worse than the former, so should be punished harder. Of course, in real cases it all gets mixed and unclear, especially when also question of intent comes into discussion.
  - ebrenes 12y ago
    You're really sweeping under the rug a lot of people who would be impacted by having $10 taken away. I am certain >0 people would have checks bounce, payments declined, fees imposed on them. For many people $10 can be the difference between being able to afford rent, payment of utilities or other items that could cascade into affecting their life significantly. The poor are really susceptible to these type of accidents Also, about 60 million of the US population are below the age of 14 (which given you got 3 bln dollars from $10, I'm assuming you're taking the whole ~318 million population), that means many minors just lost $10 that to them would likely be more money than they ever had or be a significant amount of money. And that doesn't even go into other aspects of the theft, like the effects nationwide on everyone having money taken away from them. The erosion of confidence in the safety of their money. I posit to you a likely scenario of what you described. Imagine if everyone citizen in the US were issued a government mandated ID with an associated federally insured bank account. Now, the whole scenario becomes viable, where a hacker could steal $10 from every citizen in the U.S. Now, that would first create a huge debacle. It would most likely cause an immediate loss of trust in the online marketplace, cost probably billions of dollars in getting it fixed. It would end many people's careers, most likely lead to companies getting fined, economic stagnation depending on a cascade effect from a loss of confidence in markets. It's hardly a victimless crime. Sure, we could keep diminishing the amount to something ridiculous till we're maybe talking about stealing 1 cent. Which would still be a fairly juicy pay off of 3 million, and that would erase away many of my points or at least reduce their incidence significantly. I'm sure some people would miss payments or have other inconveniences affect them. Likewise, the theft would have repercussions on many people's lives. Even if I were to take the magical scenario of someone who magically made 1 cent disappear from everyone's wallet/bank account. That would still cause great impact and damage. "Are there more people like him with such magical powers?" I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have to look at the final magnitude not just the token value of the damage done per capita. And also look at the damage done by having affected so many people simultaneously.
o0-0o 12y ago
Sliding-scale fines (higher penalties for higher earners) is a good working model of this. E.g. if you make more money your speeding tickets cost more. I was suggesting that it could proven that white collar crimes are committed by higher earners, and therefore should carry heavier penalties.