You have it backwards. A perfect detection rate for crime makes it much more important that we define conservatively what we even consider to be a crime in the first place, and then what kind of punishment we levy upon it.
You also have it backwards because it already reliably makes society better for you. Take the case of Biogen employee Michael Bawduniak, who spent seven years documenting covert payments that steered doctors toward Biogen’s multiple‑sclerosis drugs illegally. When the United States Department of Justice settled the case for $900 million in 2022, Bawduniak received roughly $266 million, or about 30% of the federal proceeds, under the False Claims Act. It's a very similar mechanism, and anyone you may know who suffers from multiple sclerosis has likely had their treatment options materially improved thanks to Bawduniak's actions. But those kinds of actions only happen when you have the right mechanisms in place, to reward people who do the right thing.
My point is actually that the type of crime doesn't matter. If it's good enough to break up vast financial conspiracy networks, it's probably good enough for your bog standard aggravated assault cases or what have you, where people are a lot less skilled at avoiding detection.
Well, I disagree, but I pick my battles carefully and would never risk turning someone against the False Claims Act to win such a small victory. Point conceded.
Modern people are so risk averse. Back in the day we would rob trains. These days society is the equivalent of a HOA - freedom is fast forgotten and trains go mostly unmolested except through that one bastion of liberty: Los Angeles. Society is full of tattletales and stool pigeons. A criminal society is a free society. Order is antithetical to expression.
You have it backwards. A perfect detection rate for crime makes it much more important that we define conservatively what we even consider to be a crime in the first place, and then what kind of punishment we levy upon it.
You also have it backwards because it already reliably makes society better for you. Take the case of Biogen employee Michael Bawduniak, who spent seven years documenting covert payments that steered doctors toward Biogen’s multiple‑sclerosis drugs illegally. When the United States Department of Justice settled the case for $900 million in 2022, Bawduniak received roughly $266 million, or about 30% of the federal proceeds, under the False Claims Act. It's a very similar mechanism, and anyone you may know who suffers from multiple sclerosis has likely had their treatment options materially improved thanks to Bawduniak's actions. But those kinds of actions only happen when you have the right mechanisms in place, to reward people who do the right thing.
That is entirely different type of crime. Do you let an AI write your comments?
I think the poster does.
My point is actually that the type of crime doesn't matter. If it's good enough to break up vast financial conspiracy networks, it's probably good enough for your bog standard aggravated assault cases or what have you, where people are a lot less skilled at avoiding detection.
[flagged]
Why? How do you draw the line between people who deserve to be "surveilled" (if you can even call it that in this case...) vs. people who don't?
You are entitled to your opinion of course but it just seems extremely arbitrary.
1 reply →
Well, I disagree, but I pick my battles carefully and would never risk turning someone against the False Claims Act to win such a small victory. Point conceded.
Modern people are so risk averse. Back in the day we would rob trains. These days society is the equivalent of a HOA - freedom is fast forgotten and trains go mostly unmolested except through that one bastion of liberty: Los Angeles. Society is full of tattletales and stool pigeons. A criminal society is a free society. Order is antithetical to expression.