[bitanarch]

It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works.

e.g. Google was alleged to have illegally issued options to their employees back in 2004 by the SEC. If they prosecuted Google's board and officers with maximum penalty in a federal court (and the court allowed such nonsense), then both Larry and Sergey (and a bunch of executives) would end up with 5-year prison sentences before Google had a chance to go IPO. But such a course of action is obviously not in public interest - the amount of damage to investors and the public in general caused by the remedy would far outweigh whatever irregularities in option grants that Google committed.

And btw, the same securities laws also apply when you open a startup and raise funds or issue options. It's not "Oh but Google is rich and I'm poor these laws won't hit me". Quite a number of securities law violations don't require intent. A single filing error by your lawyers can mean you're already in violation (and, years in prison if you use the maximum penalty) - even if you're just a tiny startup with $100k.

Both prosecutors and courts have always been walking a fine line on what's considered fair for each particular circumstance. It's how it has always been.

[hn_throwaway_99]

But that is not what the parent comment to yours was arguing. He wasn't asking for the maximum available penalty, he was just saying that, in essence, justice should be blind, and criminal penalties should not be lessened based on the wealth or power of the convicted.

Using your own example, he was basically saying that if someone with "a tiny startup with $100k" was guilty of the same crime, he should face the same penalties as Musk.

[anticensor]

> It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works.

Tell that to muslims.