I’d be content to see their assets seized, followed by a flogging, and a week in the stocks.
Bloodthirsty lot here.
Personally, I see a divide in crimes against property and crimes against people. Crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc are directly against the victim. Crimes like theft or vandalism are indirect - the victim may own the property but was not directly attacked by the crime.
I feel the death penalty is severe enough that it should be reserved just for crimes against people.
I was going to make the point about Debtors Prison, but now that I think about it, if you stole billions of dollars or defrauded the public, that’s not a debt in the financial sense. You didn’t borrow your way into trouble, you stole and lied your way. You might even have created debt for other people in the process.
The trouble with “pay back all the money” as a solution is that money can be transferred, hidden, and laundered; and the perpetrator can file for bankruptcy, receive donations, or have his sentence handled by some generous corporate partner.
That’s why the penalty for white-collar crime should be blue-collar work. Steal a million bucks and you’ll end up in 110-degree weather somewhere in Guam tarring runways and paving road beds.
What he said. In a just world, Madoff would be looking at the possibility of facing a firing squad.
Modern society has rejected the idea of putting someone in prison for honestly getting in over their heads and unable to pay back what they owe. It has not rejected the idea of putting someone in prison for theft and fraud. The latter is the subject at issue here.
And another perspective on the subject:
This is already accounted for under current law (Negligent Homicide, manslaughter et al)
Like it or not, we operate under some semblance of an eye(more or less) for an eye for legal punishments in this country. We consider anything else to be cruel and unusual.
While it may be unconstitutional to implement the death penalty, slavery is explicitly permissable as punishment for a crime where the party was duly convicted.
It would be the most demoralizing to make them do work that has absolutely no purpose. Make them dig holes and fill them back up again. Stuff like that. If they’re going to waste other peoples time for no good reason, we may as well do it them too.
Hardly. Fortunes lost tend to stay lost. And you can’t expect someone to rebuild 50 years of saving when they are 5 years from retirement.
But as I said, monetary crimes can and do hurt and kill people. The distinction isn’t that neat.
And as Blalron pointed out, one of the things you are stealing from them is time. Not to mention the opportunity to do something with that money. It’s not really that different from kidnapping someone and keeping them in your basement for a decade or two; both steal time and freedom. Just like a large scale thief, a kidnapper like that can say “Hey, I never actually hurt them”; that doesn’t make kidnapping and false imprisonment for years a small crime either.
IMHO, it’s more a matter of rich people crimes versus poor people crimes.
So your argument is that people have supported it ever since they didn’t support it, and therefore it’s an inalienable belief? That doesn’t seem like a particularly impressive argument to me. Execution for theft was around a lot longer than it hasn’t been. Beyond that, you’re forgetting that even in this century past people were treating the lives of some as worth more or less than the lives of others. The idea that all people’s lives are equally worthy as a widespread belief is a pretty new one, to be honest.
Beyond that, i’m not entirely sure what you mean by us maintaining some trace of the idea of sacredness. I’m against the death penalty, for reasons I would not attribute to a concept of the sacredness of the human life, nor do I believe in human life being sacred. Is it your assertion that my stance against it in fact comes from me believing in that sacredness somewhere inside me? That seems to be what you’re claiming; not only am I wrong to not accept the idea, but that I secretly do accept the idea.
Prisoners make license plates for a pittance. Let white-collar thieves do the same.
These guys tend to overwhelmingly be physically soft, middle-aged, suits. Take every penny they have and you may kill them right there. Their pasty backs will split under the lash like the fat on a baking ham. Following that with a week of non-stop physical agony and public humiliation in the stocks should really just about do it. You’ll see a stunning transformation from arrogant, preening greed-head into a bent, broken, scarred shell who’ll spend the remainder of his days devouring his own heart for all he had and lost. Death’s too easy.
He fucked over an awful lot of people. If I were him I’d be working under that assumption.
I am not missing out on that argument, I simply don’t accept it. Murder means taking positive action to end a life, by shooting, stabbing, poisoning, etc… Most of the other hypothetical cases being tossed around in this thread are not murder. If a white collar criminal ruins someone financially and then the victim chooses to commit suicide, the white collar criminal did not murder the victim. Rather, the victim chose to commit suicide.
The underlying presumption in Blalron’s OP is that money is the only thing that matters is human existence. Obviously it is not. Killing somebody has many more effects than merely denying them the opportunity to earn money. Kidnapping somebody has many more effects than merely denying them the opportunity to earn money. I would imagine that most relatives and friends of murder victims view the lost earning potential of the victim as completely trivial compared to the other things that were lost.
My argument is nothing of the sort. I believe that some things are morally right and others are morally wrong, absolutely and without regard to the whims of any particular government. I believe that execution for theft is morally wrong.
I make no attempt to lecture you about what happens within your own mind. I merely stating that to most people, the idea of equating murder with theft won’t fly because the first takes a human life while the second only takes money. Most people view a human life as worth more than money, despite the sort of equivalences that our government makes, as described in the OP. Now why should that be, unless we believe that human life is sacred, meaning given unique value by a source higher than human law?
Let me ask again the question I already posed to Blalron. Is killing an 80-year-old worse than killing a 30-year-old? Almost everyone says they’re the same. Why? From a financial perspective, killing an 80-year-old does the next of kin a big favor. Clearly the equivalence does not arise from finances then. So why are the two murders equally bad?
I take the Epicurean view that death cannot be bad for the one who has died. So long as one is alive, one is, and when one is dead one ceases to exist and cannot feel any sense of deprivation. So I basically consider the idea that murder harms the victim as a sort of legal fiction. Certainly the pain leading up to death is a harm, but death itself is not (for the decedent).
Nevertheless, there are still good reasons to punish murderers harshly. Most of us wish to remain alive, and wish to see our friends and family remain alive. Our laws are a kind of “Universal Anti-Murder Insurance.” It’s a social contract.
I think I was going to say this word for word. Good post.
The thing is you CAN’T take all their money, this guys are very good at making it impossible for the U.S. to get at it. Thats why you keep them in jail doing hard labor (no more club fed please) until they’ve paid back what they took. A few months of digging holes or crushing rocks later and they’ll voluntarily open up those swiss bank accounts just to lower their sentence. Tossing them in jail for a decade or two and then releasing them to live like kings in some third world country is not punishment enough.
You just described China.
Let us say you purchased a formerly owned and occupied home. It is closing day, you sign the papers and hand over a check and go to the house which was vacated by the previous owners just days ago. When you enter the house, the most horrible reek hits you. It totally stinks terribly. You check around and find that every toilet in the house contains human solid waste.
Question: what is the first thing you do?
Answer: flush.
Why don’t we do that when we find six feet of stacked human waste walking around amongst us?
I imagine that there would be huge problems associated with setting any arbitrary value upon what white collar crimes should be eligible for the death penalty.
Say for example you decree that you get the death penalty for fraud cases that value over one billion dollars. Well just watch as the lawyers patiently explain that after transferring personal accounts from the cayman island at the current exchange rates, the total value of the crime was only $999,999,012. And that the share price the prosecution is baseing their values upon is actually inaccurate because of (insert accounting jargon here)
Many people oppose the death penalty because of the chance of making a mistake, killing an innocent man. How can you ever be certain when it comes judging cases involving so many disparate and complicated factors as the world of finance?