I've always been in favor of the Norway sentencing model [0]. 21 years is the max prison sentence, with 5 year extensions possible. Punishment must always carry the possibility of rehabilitation and return to society, even in the most extreme cases. A small amount of people will show no remorse or willingness to improve and will remain in prison for life.
Ouch! I hadn't heard of this before, and I gotta say I'm not a fan.
I agree with it only in principle; it seems ripe for injustice in all practical details.
If you maintain your innocence, is that a lack of remorse? Can you be any kind of 'model citizen' in prison - engaging in charity or volunteer work? Who brings the +5 year charge or provides evidence for it? The prison staff who don't find your personable, or the shrink who doesn't think you're taking the sessions seriously (if shrink visits in prison exist)?
> I agree with it only in principle; it seems ripe for injustice in all practical details.
Yep, instead of "you definitely get out of prison after X years have passed" you instead get "you get out of prison in 21 years! (or never, depending on how we feel)".
Per the wiki page, the five year extensions are for the indeterminate penalty, not for any prison sentence. The alternate to this sentence is "We will kill you in prison" or "You will die in prison".
I think that might be the best normal path, but I think there's a (relatively small) population of offenders who we can know have no real prospect of rehabilitation.
Perhaps the more important distinction: if we're going to let people out of prison eventually, we should make sure that prison is a place that is set up in the best way to make that eventual return to society successful. Right now, it feels like we do the opposite.
What do you believe Sam would do if granted a shorter sentence, assuming they believe they've done nothing wrong? Who should carry the burden of re-offense without remorse?
People make mistakes, to err is human, and forgiveness should be provided to those with the capacity to change (ie harm less). Compassion is important. But if you don't believe you've done anything wrong, can we not project future potential outcomes? Prison duration is a risk assessment of harm reduction.
EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.
> The difference is society gets 12 additional years of safety which it wouldn't get otherwise.
Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102? Aren't we doing society a disservice by ever allowing criminals to leave prison?
> Ostensibly
I chose this word carefully, because I think a lot of our preconceived notions on criminal behavior have not been validated by the real world, including the deterrent effects of long-term imprisonments.
> Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102?
Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written by legislature, considered case-law, the specifics of this case and applied their professional judgement to come up with a 25-year sentence as an appropriate one for the crimes committed. If the defendant disagrees, they can appeal the sentence to get a second opinion.
You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences - I'll apply it to your argument in turn - why send guilty people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60, or 6000? A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world and the one we strive for in reality.
> Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written
We know the mechanics of why it was chosen. What I was asking was by your logic, 22 is less protective of society than 102, which makes me question the validity of "it protects society" reasoning. Why protect less when we have a quantifiably greater level of protection?
> You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences
This is incredibly dismissive. We have arbitrary sentencing guidelines. They are based on reasoning, but that doesn't mean they are correct. They are fluid, change from locale to locale, and have unpredictable efficacy.
> why send people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60
You see, I don't think that's reductio ad absurdum at all. It's a valid question. You can argue for it and against it, but it isn't absurd or contradictory on its face.
> A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world
All you're saying here is 6000 > 1. We know this. I'm asking why 6000 is right, 1 is wrong, and why we throw away the other 5998.
> EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.
No. Prison should be about punishment combined with rehabilitation, neither at the expense of the other.
It is perfectly OK to say that punishment, the infliction of pain, for a crime, is warranted even if it has no rehabilitative value, assuming that it is not demeaning or cruel.
Why? Several reasons:
1. Punishment has it's own value for the sake of justice. A hypothetical: Imagine there was a drug, with a 10% fatality rate, that perfectly rendered the receiver incapable of murder without any other side effects. They just perfectly gain control of their emotions and reason, or something to that effect. If a person goes and murders 50 individuals, but takes the drug and lives; they've been theoretically perfectly rehabilitated and need to be let back into society, right?
If you think, "of course not," you are now admitting that punishment has a value by itself.
EDIT: Also, this hypothetical, actually exists. Imagine this case with SBF. Imagine if the only penalty for his actions, were that he could not run a banking organization ever again, or hold more than $1,000,000 in any account that he controls. Perfectly rehabilitated, my hypothetical with the drug, in one swoop. He will never be able to commit this crime again.
I think I might very well run and do a financial fraud tomorrow. At least I'll enjoy the high life for several years. You are literally telling me, in that case, I could live for years, possibly decades (if I'm Madoff), and my only punishment will be that I can't do it again. After all, it's only about rehabilitation for myself; and to do otherwise would be punishment for punishment's sake.
2. If punishment is not given out fairly, and is only contingent upon rehabilitation; you are ignoring the rights and feelings of the victims and focusing too heavily on the rights and feelings of the criminal. Victims have feelings and rights, and considering they are the harmed, their feelings and rights ought to be first priority, and the criminal's second. Otherwise, victims feel the need to take things into their own hands. Always have, always will, as part of human nature. That's how you get societal meltdown, followed by vigilantism.
While there's some benefit (deterrence) to there being perceived costs to bad behaviour, it's arguable whether punishment for the sake of punishment stands up on its own merits.
In your proposed world, where murderousness is recognised as a treatable illness, it doesn't really seem reasonable to punish to punish or to imprison as a deterrent.
I'll kill your daughter, scatter her remains on the road, take the drug, and see if you think otherwise.
Think about it. Under this hypothetical (which I think is OK, everybody does Trolly Problems all the time), you should be just fine with this result. The deterrence value is there (10% chance of death), I've been rehabilitated permanently so I can be let out a week after I did the murder, it's all good. I might as well add some torture to the mix as well, because the drug will perfectly rehabilitate that too, of course, so it doesn't really matter how I did it either.
Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.
There is an emotional and personal aspect to that, but typically we don't set laws that way.
I'd also argue that "it's all good" is not a fair measure for when we consider justice to be served. Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.
> Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.
I think you're confusing forgiveness with punishment. The two are not incompatible.
If your son hits your daughter, you forgive him immediately (you do not hold hatred or anger in your heart for that action); but you still punish him to deter the future behavior. The two are not incompatible, or at odds with one another. Similarly, it is not incompatible that a man who committed mass murder might be forgiven by the families (in that they won't hold hate in their hearts, or use his name as a curse), but the families may also simultaneously desire that the individual be removed from society.
> Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.
Retribution is part of justice, and is not at odds with it. If I steal $500, I owe $500 as part of justice. If I steal $1,000; I owe $1,000 as part of justice. If I steal $10 billion dollars, a sum I shall never repay, I can only beg forgiveness and pay the most I reasonably can, for a reasonable amount of my life. For justice, at that point, recognizes that a society which allowed me to steal $10 billion in the first place, has some responsibility as well, reducing the required amount for retribution.
The punishment so that the universe feels more fair to me isn't all that useful. Maybe as you suggest the mob lynchings in this case are unavoidable but I'm not convinced.
Happily (both for those who want to subjectively See Justice Done, and for those who upon reflection find it all a little perverse), the two don't really seem to be separable beyond a certain point.
It might work for you, but are you telling me that if you were the murderer in question, you wouldn't be afraid that the family wouldn't assassinate you at first opportunity if this happened to their daughter?
A heavy sentence is safety for the criminal as well.
Retribution shouldn't be the driving force, but I can understand it from a societal standpoint. Victims and the families of the victims will want to see a punishment applied for the harm they've suffered. It's in the state's interest to make sure that it's not excessively applied, but to degree there's a mix of correction and retribution that has to be taken into account at sentencing. One person's spite is another's justice.
I think that if too many people see retribution as no longer being applied, some people will start to take matters into their own hands to seek vengeance.
The state has an interest in preventing that and assuring retribution is applied as evenly as possible, and counterbalanced by other mitigating factors (e.g. the degree of offense, the circumstances under which it occurred, likelihood of reoffending, penitence of the guilty, etc.).
I find your points quite interesting. If I'm understanding correctly, that if the victims, families of victims, or frankly, anyone who feels pain and wants to seek retribution, don't believe that the retribution is sufficient, then they may take action into their own hands. I witnessed this living in Tanzania, where if people didn't trust the police to arrest and punish someone who stole, sometimes the people would track down and seek mob justice (violence?) against the person who stole.
So if the government would take a true rehabilitative approach, and maybe arrest people but treat them well, try to help them so they don't do the same behaviors in the future, a percentage of the population might see that as insufficient and take retribution into their own hands.
You've helped me realize why I've actually shifted my professional focus from wanting to change politics to wanting to change culture. Seems a lot of being in government is doing what the people want, and if the people want retribution, then the government has to follow it.
I hope for (and am working towards) a world in which we help people know our pain not by trying to cause the same pain to them, but by expressing our pain to them with more granularity, because the pain they'd feel as a result of retribution will never be the exact same pain we feel, as our contexts are way too complex to replicate exactly.
I really appreciate your comment, thank you for helping me think more deeply about this.
Yes, I think you've eloquently summarized my thinking on this. Thankfully I've never had to witness people trying to take justice into their own hands, as you have, though I imagine it must be harrowing to witness especially in a mob situation.
It sounds like you're trying to be part of the solution, which I deeply commend. Thank you also for your very thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.
One of the most "unstabalizing" things in a society is a person or people with nothing to lose. You could make an argument for much of government being reducing the number of people with nothing to lose.
I think both of those are flawed views. Not necessarily mistaken, but incomplete. One of the key reasons we imprison people is to prevent them from doing further harm to society: i.e., we put them in prison for our benefit, not theirs. It's definitely good if they're rehabilitated along the way, but rehabilitation isn't necessary for their imprisonment to be a net benefit to society.
I think it depends on how we define victim, and especially how direct and tangible the harm needs to be to be considered a victim.
But maybe it also has to do with whether people feel victimized. If no one felt victimized, would we punish?
So I imagine it's probably a combination of who feels victimized and who society believes should feel victimized. Because as others may respond, white-collar crime has people who get harmed as a result of the actions, even if it's not as obvious as the person directly punching them in the face.
One could argue that even the fact of breaking the law can harm those who went through great lengths to not break the law.
What SBF has done is not a victimless crime though: lots of fairly ordinary people lost money because of what he did, some of them lost everything.
Yes, I know some of the people who lost money are rich, and much is being made of that by people who want to troll by saying that's the only reason he really got into trouble (e.g., on Reddit). But that's not true: there are plenty of victims from SBFs crimes, both rich and not rich.
And in this kind of discussion I suggest it's helpful to avoid hypotheticals and to look at the real situations and outcomes relating to the case we're talking about.
What is a victimless crime? Speeding? Even though excessive speed is strongly correlated with crash deaths?
Fraud? The money comes from somewhere; someone is harmed by it (Pratchett's Going Postal has a good line on it - "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
IMO an important component of punishment is convincing society that justice has been served. Too light a punishment, and vigilantism will become prevalent.
Your comment and another above has me thinking that it's almost like vicarious punishment. "If you don't punch them, I will, so you better punch them hard enough."
It makes sense. We empower the government to act on our behalf, including with violence. Arguably it is one of the fundamental reasons for government to exist.
And I wonder if certain calculations, like preventing vigilantism, tend to act on the behalf of not the majority of a population but an extreme few. Or in other words, if 95% of the population support an idea but 5% violently opposes it, does the government cater more to the 95% or 5%? At what point are government officials afraid that the 5% will commit violent acts against society or them and their loved ones and therefore cater to their perspective more than the majority?
I'll try to find the article, I think the point was that we think we are being violent to others with a conscious intention of trying to prevent future violence, but that most of the time we are doing it with the intention of them knowing our current pain that we think they caused to us, not really thinking much about the future.
So if the spite causes people to feel sufficiently afraid to do the action in the future, maybe it deters people from acting that way?
I wonder how the measure they measure the deterrence effect, it seems impossible to me. It would be a society-wide thing (hard to come up with an isolated experiment) and it seems like something where people would bring in a ton of bias.
Recidivism I think is a great one: direct experience of the traumas of imprisonment not only fail to address the root failures which lead to crime, it seems to exacerbate it! If direct experience fails to deter, I am unconfident proxy experience would see success either. It's a meme by now, but see Norway for something closer to the mark.
Recidivism was something I wondered about for a second, but I think it is not what we’re looking for. I think the theory of deterrence is specifically that punishing crimes harshly will make other members of society less willing to commit crimes. Recidivism is a failure of rehabilitation, not deterrence, right?
It also seems like the population of ex-criminals couldn’t be representative of the population as a whole, right?
(FWIW I think the theory of deterrence is probably not correct, I can’t prove a negative, but the burden of proof lies at the feet of people who suggesting it I think).
At some point its not about deterrent or social benefit but justice. People can say its not fair or productive for people like him to be locked up forever. Well, what about their victims? How many people's financial futures were destroyed by SBF? Is it fair to all those people that he will get to live a normal life? And likely a comfortable well off one at that. He already had a privileged family and I have no doubt it will be easy for him to profit off his story once he gets out. The hardly seems right.
> Well, what about their victims? How many people's financial futures were destroyed by SBF? Is it fair to all those people that he will get to live a normal life?
That sounds more like retribution than justice. I.E. wanting to cause him pain because he caused pain in others.
Of course, i don't have a better answer by any means.
It is deterrence: it sends the message of don't do the same thing or you'll wind up in prison for a long time. It really isn't retribution, this kind of enforcement is meant to scare other potential white collar criminals into not breaking the law as well.
It protects potential future victims - both from SBF and from those who might want to emulate him.
Which is why I think the sentence is too low.
There are other ways he could make reparations. One would be to have one-to-one meetings with his victims, where they tell him in person how his actions affected them.
There's a fair chance it would bounce right off SBF, because he clearly has serious personality issues.
So, legal theory provides three reasons for punishment:
1) revenge ("an eye for an eye") - that's not considered a factor anymore today except as an upside-limit on the punishment, ie, the punishment should not exceed the damage caused. Here, the damage caused was immense, so don't think that'll be a limiting factor.
2) specific prevention - keep that particular perpetrator off the streets, so they can't commit crimes again. There's some argument that old people commit fewer crimes, so when the perpetrator is old enough, one can let them go. Maybe one shouldn't let SBF out until he's older than Madoff was...
3) general prevention, aka deterrence - make sure that the punishment (in conjunction with the probability of being caught) is sufficient to discourage others from committing the crime. This is problematic as apparently most perpetrators seem to think that they won't be caught (which is why capital punishment doesn't necessarily reduce crime rates). I think in this case it's good that the many, many crypto "operators" see that there is some downside in scamming people.
Imo 5 means 3 and that is too low for most serious crimes, it feels almost like an incentive to just not get caught, more than an incentive to not do it all.
Losing 20 years of your life though will have a drastic effect on the rest of your life. As it should for some crimes.
Or is your argument we should skip from 10 to death, I'm honestly not sure.
My perception of some of these financial crimes - Madoff included - is they start off with a small slip, rather than a full dive into fraud. A lot of times it snowballs while the person responsible keeps searching for a way out.
I wonder at what point SBF would have even said what he was doing was immoral. If you're running a Ponzi scheme you think you can salvage, would you compare yourself to Madoff, or would you think "I'm trying to set things right"?
From what I read on Wikipedia, Madoff didn't make a single investment with the money given to his wealth management program. He deposited it all into a bank account and paid people out of the same bank account. This is notably different from SBF's case.
Rather, I'm suggesting that in the eye of the beholder, a very clear case of fraud might be self-perceived as a bump on the road to lawful, legitimate financial dealings.
So the question is if SBF didn't see himself as committing the same crimes as Madoff (even if he was), would Madoff's sentencing and fate even register as a potential deterrent?
We don't know to what extent prison is a deterrent. It's classic survivor bias - we only get to see the cases where the deterrent failed, not where it succeeded.
I guess the nuance is that SBF can get paroles if he behaved well. That is, this 25 years can be punitive, but he will also has a chance to earn some trust and reduce the punishment.
He can’t get parole, but can get RDAP, halfway house, first step act, good behavior (15%), in theory a rule 35b (not sure what he knows), and whatever else gets invented in the future. Maybe a commuted sentence but probably not for a while.
Probably out in 17 years which is still a long time.
I was most surprised by the recommendation of medium security. Not sure how well Sam will do in a medium.
There is a possible "good behavior" reduction, but the maximum of that works out to around 15% off the sentence. He'll serve at least 21 of those years or so.
The problem is, criminals think they will not be caught. There is a deterrent, but the difference between 10, 20 and 30 years is abstract for someone who thinks they are not caught.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway