Comment by int_19h
2 days ago
I'm not OP, but the obvious question here is whether tougher punishments would be more of a deterrent given that this is something that hasn't been true in many other cases going way back.
In particular, there seems to be substantial evidence that, at least past a certain point (and we can argue whether we are at that point or not, but it's not something self-evident either), what matters more is how likely the punishment is to be applied than how harsh it is, so increasing it further doesn't really do anything productive, just provides a public spectacle.
I disagree. Trevor Milton, the Nikola Motors fraudster CEO will be out after a laughable four years. That's a complete joke.
Do you think he wouldn't do what he had done if the punishment for getting caught would've been worse?
When people see Milton getting locked up for four years, it's in no way proportional to the upside of making out with thousands of lifetimes worth of average honest work. If others who had done similar crimes before him had received more severe punishments he may have chosen not to.
That's not to mention the court's complete lack of concern for recidivism. Look at Bill Hwang. Slapped on the wrist for insider trading -> billions of dollars of later economic damage. Likely chance we'll see the same pattern of behavior from Milton. I'm generally for forgiveness and second chances, but not in the realm of steering thousands of lifetimes worth of honest economic influence.