Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zenith2017 t1_j9fuh4z wrote

Reply to comment by idioma in Pennsylvania lawmaker to introduce legislation repealing death penalty by Waterwebgrasshopper

I could have made my point more clear. What I mean to say is, because we know it doesn't deter a premeditated violent crime, I'm pretty sure it will also not deter a premeditated large scale financial crime and that is why I say the theory doesn't hold water. My greater implication being that the death penalty doesn't help in basically any way, there's no benefits that aren't based on emotional responses

I do agree with your point that something like that affects way way way more people and at larger scales than any isolated violent action. Steal $50 with a gun and you're away for 20, steal $50M with a Ponzi scheme and you're put away for a couple years at best

2

idioma t1_j9g17pw wrote

> because we know it doesn't deter a premeditated violent crime, I'm pretty sure it will also not deter a premeditated large scale financial crime

Why?

I provided a clear explanation of how these crimes are different. They are not at all alike. Financial crimes are dispassionate both in their planning and in their execution. Violent crimes, even when premeditated, are passionately executed (pardon the pun). The motivations for violence are entirely different than the motivations for financial crime. Wanting someone dead is very different from wanting to enrich oneself. The motive for financial crime is rooted in financial gain. Violent crime is not.

Even if you do not agree in principle, surely you can recognize these differences are real.

We probably both agree that the death penalty as it is currently applied is not effective. We may also agree that the injustice of killing the wrongfully accused outweighs any possible benefit to society. On moral principles, we may also agree that the state shouldn’t have the power to condemn people to die.

What remains a matter of speculation is whether or not people would willfully engage in large scale financial crimes if the penalties were absolute.

1

Zenith2017 t1_j9g1w0t wrote

I don't know if we have the data out there to prove it conclusively. If we do I'm not aware of it to be honest. But I do know that negative reinforcement in general doesn't work, and so I expect that trend to hold true for financial crime regardless of the severity of the punishment

1

idioma t1_j9g7ikq wrote

That’s a fair point. From a policy position, the most effective approach would be to eliminate the conditions that make financial crimes a viable option. One major obstacle, however, is that the people who tend to have institutional access to large sums of money tend to come from a caste of society who obtained intergenerational wealth. Show me a wealthy family, and I will show you a list of crimes and human rights abuses that got them there.

When people in poverty run the streets and organize, our criminal justice system is almost indiscriminate in their application of violence. When you are poor and get money through illicit means, the police will kick down doors and shoot before they even consider reading you your rights.

When wealthy criminals empty the retirement accounts of an entire generation, their lawyers get a letter in the mail: politely asking them if they wouldn’t mind please, maybe consider, if they have time, to sit for a deposition, with a lawyer present. It’s obscene, and feeds into the idea that their place in society is above the law.

The basic theory of justice is that the state has a monopoly on violence. And this theory only works when it is applied equally for the rich and poor alike.

2