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.

> 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.

> Capital punishment doesn't deter premeditated violent crime.

Yes, agreed. Did you even read the first paragraph? Or like, the first sentence? That was exactly the point I was driving at and I provided an explanation for why it doesn’t.

> I appreciate your thinking but I don't think it holds water

So you agree, but you don’t think the argument “holds water.” Okay. What am I supposed to do with this opinion?

I understand that perspective. Could you please answer my question? A simple yes or no would be fine.

So then, just to be clear you are making a moral claim and are entirely inflexible on the matter, correct?

> Nothing is going to deter crime 100%.

Interesting counterpoint. Could you show me where in my comment I asserted that my goal was to “deter crime 100%”? Why must that be a standard, and what is your basis for it?

> Life in prison would be effective for financial crimes and there'd be no state sponsored murder.

What is your best evidence in support of that claim?

I only support the death penalty for large scale financial crimes. Unlike violent crimes, complex financial fraud schemes are never impulsive or committed in the heat of the moment. They are deliberate and premeditated. By their very nature, they require a knowledge of guilt and a willingness to carry out their actions over a long period of time.

Additionally, the motivation to commit financial crimes is entirely selfish and is done in the direct interest of the perpetrators. They assume the risks of being caught and charged because the benefits are high, while the chances of being convicted are dependent upon several factors. Even when convicted, the sentences are often much lower than those given to violent offenders. Ultimately, the penalties are perceived as merely the costs of doing business.

Now, imagine that instead we mandated the death penalty when financial crimes reached a threshold. For simplicity, sake, we can use the lifetime median earnings for the state or nation where the crime was committed.

If you make a median salary of roughly $50,000 per year and you work for at least 20 years, you will end up with a lifetime earning of about $1,650,000. Let’s assume you work from the age of 15, and retire on your 65th birthday; half a century of labor ought to be enough for anyone. We double the original figure and round up to an even $4 million. That’ll be our threshold.

The collapse of Enron, for example, involved more than $60 billion in assets. That’s well above the threshold; it is our threshold times 15,000. Now, imagine all of the co-conspirators who were directly involved and responsible for the decisions to commit massive amounts of fraud. Surely that number is fewer than 15,000.

Would everyone involved in this scheme be willing to go along with it if they knew that they would be executed if convicted? Would it still be worth the risk? Would all of those self-interested, greedy, and distrustful people be comfortable with that kind of risk, knowing that all it would take is one brave whistleblower to bring it all crashing down?

I doubt it.

Under this legal framework, the likely response when someone proposes doing something illegal with large amounts of money would be “No, Bob, I won’t cook the books for you. That’s a lot of money you’re dealing with, and I have a family. I’m not willing to die just so you can make a quick buck. Find someone else!”

The death penalty does not work as an effective deterrent against violent crimes, but when applied to financial crime? I’d like to give it the college try, and see what happens.

It Follows. I assumed it would be another workman quality horror film. Found myself genuinely enjoying the plot and even a little bit frightened by a few scenes. Solid 9/10.

“There it is, again: that funny feeling.”