|
|
|
|
|
by A4ET8a8uTh0
1303 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. |
|
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.