[eru]

It may sound a bit barbaric, but the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.

(However, if you look at the incentives and deterrence, inflicting inefficient punishment like sending someone to prison for a long time, might still make sense.)

[wpietri]

No reason we can't do both.

[eru]

There's a maximum amount of punishment you want to mete out to convicts. Otherwise everything would carry a penalty worse than death.

So there's a trade-off between handing out more of that punishment in fines to be paid to the victim or in economically inefficient activities like prison time.

As a related matter, I think corporal punishment deserves more consideration. Mostly because it's cheaper to administer than prison, and also avoids forcible socializing convicts only with each other as happens in prison.

(Of course, it's a punishment with a certain cruelty. Alas violence and injury are a common enough sight in overcrowded prisons, too.)

[wpietri]

The person we're discussing is heir to a $20 billion fortune. A fine that would constitute actual punishment to him is in the billions. Which I'm entirely in favor of here, preferably 19.9 billion or higher.

But restitution isn't punishment. Restitution helps reduce harm to the victim, and is a separate issue entirely to punishment.

[eru]

Sorry, I wasn't talking aware that you were talking punishment as in the need to cause pain for some abstract moral reason or to make people feel good.

I was more worried about issues like deterrence and restitution.

Punishment and deterrence are somewhat related, but not the same.

[kbenson]

> the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.

Justice isn't always about providing benefit to those harmed. It's also about providing a framework in which crime is avoided by all because they know there are repercussions they can't avoid.

When the expectation is that you're rich and you can get away with killing someone either through paying someone to take the fall or bribery, then that will happen more often. If the expectation is that everyone is equal under the law, that will happen less.

The US isn't perfect in this regard, but I think it's a lot better than what's being described here. If Ivanka Trump drove recklessly and killed someone, it would be a lot harder for it to play out the same way here. That's not to say she would necessarily face justice, just that it's a lot harder to get out of it, so there wouldn't necessarily be an expectation that it will go away. There's a huge difference in expecting to get away with something and knowing it's uncertain when the consequences are years in prison.

[eru]

However, do compare wrongful death claims in the US which are handled in a civil suit.

O.J. Simpson famously got off with 'not guilty' in the murder case, but lost the civil suit.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civi...

[kbenson]

Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state. I believe there's also a lower bar, and civil court works by "a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". The courts serve different purposes.

[dragonwriter]

> Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state.

This is somewhat inaccurate; while it is true that criminal cases can only be brought by the State, civil cases can be brought by the State or private parties.

[kbenson]

Oh, good to know, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! :)

[eru]

Though as far as I can tell, the state only gets treated like any other private party in a civil suit.