[JumpCrisscross]

> then the same should be applied to people handing over their wallet to muggers

Not really. Muggings are both more common and less traumatic than kidnappings. This is reflected in the fact that common and maximum sentences for kidnappings are universally more extreme than those for muggings.

> Would you really deny people the ability to save their loved ones?

...yes. Because it means significantly fewer kidnappings. "Deny people the ability to save their loved ones" is tantamount to "help others to lose their own."

[nathanmills]

And where does ransomware fall on that trauma scale? The maximum sentence is less than mugging after all..

[JumpCrisscross]

> does ransomware fall on that trauma scale?

Idk. That’s a step (sentencing guidelines) after we decide it should be criminalized.

> The maximum sentence is less than mugging after all..

They’re in the same ballpark, 2 to 6 years or so.

[nathanmills]

> That’s a step (sentencing guidelines) after we decide it should be criminalized.

You decide it should be criminalized before you identify any harms?

> They’re in the same ballpark, 2 to 6 years or so.

You can just look it up. Maximum sentence for mugging is 30 years, ransomware is 20.

[JumpCrisscross]

> You decide it should be criminalized before you identify any harms?

No. We have a measure of the harms. We haven’t balanced them for sentencing. Again, deciding something should be illegal doesn’t require obsessing over the sentence ex ante.

> Maximum sentence for mugging is 30 years

Not the norm, either for maximums [1] or usual sentences.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery_laws_in_the_United_Sta...