[JumpCrisscross]

> Since 2018, however, nonviolent federal inmates

I’d be in favour of amending the law to expand to cover fraud and corruption. Those are crimes that corrode social trust in a way that is analogous to challenging the state’s monopoly on violence. (And is separate from e.g. theft.)

[caskstrength]

Prison should be to rehabilitate (i.e. ensure that convict doesn't re-offend after they are released) as opposed to just punish and ruin people lives for their mistakes for the sake of making random commenters on internet feel good. Also, consider that keeping people in prison is very expensive and is not an optimal way for the state to spend you tax money IMO.

[wpietri]

Well, sort of. Prison should be a) to rehabilitate, and b) keep the unrehabilitated from doing harm. But the American prison system is not really interested in the first bit. I'd like to see a general change here, but SBF, given his entirely unrecalcitrant behavior, is among the worst people to make the argument with.

[Wytwwww]

How can you rehabilitee someone like him? It can work even with violent criminals, whose crimes was strongly related to the circumstances they were in. A guy like him who stole billions? What could anyone ever do to convince him to not commit fraud again if given the opportunity...

[caskstrength]

> What could anyone ever do to convince him to not commit fraud again if given the opportunity...

IMO 10 years in prison should be more than enough to discourage SBF from repeating it. And if it is not enough, then 30 years won't be enough either...

[Wytwwww]

Why? What would change in those years? I'd bet that he would be still extremely likely to commit fraud or other financial crimes (if presented the opportunity) after he got out. Maybe letting him keep a few billion would entice him to retire early (not sure if that's the most reasonable option).

> then 30 years won't be enough either

But it's not about deterring him. It's about preventing him from doing any more damage to the society and potentially deterring other people from committing the same crime. IMHO this is one sector where draconian sentences might be actually very effective, people in finance tend to be more rational and calculating than average. If you get a to steal a few billion and maybe somehow stash a proportion of that spending 5 years in prison might seem like a reasonable deal, that's pushing it but maybe even 10, not > 30 though.

[bsuvc]

> as opposed to just punish and ruin people lives for their mistakes for the sake of making random commenters on internet feel good

That is a strawman.

Besides (potentially) rehabilitation, prison serves to protect the populace from dangerous people who would harm others and as a deterrent to others who can see what punishment they might get if they do something illegal.

I am not claiming prison does a good job of these things, just that its goal is not to "ruin people's lives".

[caskstrength]

> Besides (potentially) rehabilitation, prison serves to protect the populace from dangerous people who would harm others and as a deterrent to others who can see what punishment they might get if they do something illegal.

It is not like he will be getting away with a slap on the wrist one way or another. I just don't see more years in prison past some reasonable threshold as a good deterrent.

> I am not claiming prison does a good job of these things, just that its goal is not to "ruin people's lives".

The purpose of a system is what it does.

[aidenn0]

Punishment is also useful to society, in that a sentence that is considered grossly insufficient could prompt victims to resort to violence.

[daveguy]

"...the state's monopoly on violence" does not help your argument.

Otherwise, I agree.

[JumpCrisscross]

It’s the Weberian definition of a state [1]. When non-state actors freely use violence to further their aims, we call it a failed state.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[airstrike]

no single crime, violent or not, really challenges the state's monopoly on violence

[JumpCrisscross]

> no single crime, violent or not, really challenges the state's monopoly on violence

Sure. And many murders remain unsolved. We treat murder differently from other crimes that result in human death in part due to instinct, but in part because when we don’t it becomes a political tool.

[xdavidliu]

I wonder if there's a name for this rhetorical device: like casually insert shocking statements about atrocities committed by those in power. Chomsky uses it extensively.