[zug_zug]

Feels low to me too. I think the distinction between "violent" is completely irrelevant. I think taking money from people does just as much harm as physically injuring them -- many people would rather have several bones broken than lose their pension.

The benefit is the deterrent. It's especially important for wealthy people who we may wonder if they greased wheels behind the scenes.

If you want somebody to cry about, cry about a man doing a life sentence for marijuana possession, not sbf. [1]

1 - https://eji.org/news/life-sentence-for-marijuana-possession-...

[dijit]

FWIW people have a viceral reaction to extremes of violence that they can comprehend.

When you consider that a 1% unemployment rate increase generally correlates to ~5,000 deaths then you can consider gross financial negligence to have an actual tangible human mortality cost.

We just don't, because it's too indirect and your laywer would argue confounding factors until you are all dead; but don't be mistaken: financial crimes do cost lives.

[tshaddox]

I think it's generally appropriate to group violence, coercion, and fraud together in these discussions.

[FabHK]

> I think the distinction between "violent" is completely irrelevant.

In particular since several people with crypto losses committed suicide, or worse, murder-suicide (killing their family and kids first).

[batch12]

I think it's okay to consider both to be too long.

[CraigJPerry]

>> The benefit is the deterrent

That’s utterly useless. There is simply no way any sociopath gives one iota about it.

[tsimionescu]

On the contrary, sociopaths typically only care about the deterrent.