Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by js8 1299 days ago
Well, to be fair - if you were an honest politician, where would you rather spend your energy:

(a) trying to prosecute the con men (helps no one, is just a punishment)

(b) systemic changes to prevent such crime in the future (helps middle class not to make a stupid decision)

(c) some other policy, like, I dunno, better healthcare access (helps people in peril regardless what their decision is)

Rationally, there are many systemic problems to solve by policy and proper justice is just too low on the list when it comes to benefit/cost ratio.
2 comments
A4ET8a8uTh0 1299 days ago
<< (a) trying to prosecute the con men (helps no one, is just a punishment)

I take issue with this statement. I accept that there are limited resources and there is a question of how to use those resources wisely. However, there is a reason beyond simple question of karma/balance for a society to ensure that sufficiently egregious crime is punished. I absolutely disagree that it helps no one as it very well may stem a tide of future con-men, which is not without a toll.

Now compare that to option c ( other policy change ), which, in current gridlock setup seems somewhat unlikely.

That said, I accept that there are other considerations at play here.

link
js8 1299 days ago
Yeah, but you already have a police/justice system, right? From the perspective of a politician, the decision (a) is more about "prioritize the police/justice system to do its work on these cases". The justice will have to drop something else they are doing to work on this, and that something else might be beneficial in preventing the future crime in the same way you're arguing. (If you mean make sure systemic changes are made to the prioritization, that's another variant of the (b) option.)

But to be honest, I am not sure retributive punishment really prevents crime all that well. U.S. has a lot of laws against fraud, and has a pretty good track record in investigating and punishing as far as different governments do, and fraudsters still appear. I think in most cases, people aren't rational about committing a crime, they often self-delude themselves somehow that whatever they are doing is morally acceptable. I think there was an interview with the FTX CEO, who answered the interviewer's question with incredulous "the way you describe what we do, it indeed looks like a fraud". So I think some people have the ability NOT to see their pyramid scheme as a pyramid scheme.

On the other hand, people who will rationally consider whether to do a crime or not, should not necessarily think that because someone got away with a crime, they will get away with it too. You might as well think that the police/justice will be better prepared to a similar crime now.

link
fellellor 1299 days ago
>honest politician

There is no such thing

>helps no one, is just a punishment

Not true. This makes me feel better. That is invaluable.

>helps middle class not to make a stupid decision

I don't feel anything about that.

>helps people in peril regardless what their decision is

I don't feel anything about that.

link