Comment by rank0
20 hours ago
That’s an insane take. Financial damage isn’t a problem for you? What if someone targeted you personally or your business?
20 hours ago
That’s an insane take. Financial damage isn’t a problem for you? What if someone targeted you personally or your business?
I’m not arguing against compensation and other dissuasive/retributive punishment - I did call it a misdeed. Suitable compensation and punishment are absolutely appropriate.
But yes, I am arguing that four years of prison time (there’s also three years of supervised release - so seven years of court oversight total) is disproportionate punishment, and probably any prison time at all for this act. Prison makes the most sense for violent criminals.
I am fine with lots of other compensatory and punitive consequences, including the criminal conviction itself which should not be underestimated as a public record visible in background checks, at least some kinds of orders restricting future activities with computers and/or his former employer for a suitable duration, plus whatever monetary consequences are deemed appropriate.
You’re so noble! /s
How much money would someone need to cause in damages to you or your loved ones before you change your tune? Steal your car? Your home? Your parent’s retirement? It’s just money!
Yes. It’s just money, which is why I want non-imprisonment punishments for any of those scenarios, unless prison would usefully achieve some remedial goal like making your car theft example less likely to recur because the person is locked up.
There are lots of better ways to punish this kind of crime, generally. Imprisonment doesn’t get my money back, is expensive for the taxpayer, is at least as likely to make the criminal more prone to reoffend as less prone to that given how typical American prisons work, and isn’t necessary for either retributive or deterrent purposes.
Their criminal record, any court order to pay compensatory and punitive damages, any loss of their own property or bankruptcy that results, and so on would be plenty of retribution and deterrence.
Now, if they try to flee from justice or violate court orders or hide assets in ways that imprisonment would usefully interfere with, that’s a different question. Prison makes sense in many cases, but merely making the victims of a nonviolent monetary crime feel satisfied is not inherently such a case.
I don't buy this equivalence of financial damage to a person with financial damage to a business.
If I had a business its finances would be separate from my personal finance using limited liability, so even if someone destroyed 100% of its value, it would only be no return on investment for me - sad and bad but totally not equivalent to losing all my personal money.
And I don’t buy this as a serious well thought out argument. If someone destroys your method of producing personal income they have indeed damaged your personal finances.
What about the employees you had to let go to cover the shortfall? No damages there either?
Same category - bad but not enough to warrant four years jail time. Unless you are prepared to argue four years in jail for unlawful termination.
1 reply →