[SoftTalker]

Paying back a victim, or "making them whole" is part of required restitution, but it's not adequate as a deterrence. If all I have to do is pay back my victims, there's very little disincentive to keep trying my schemes until I "win."

Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.

[Lerc]

>Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.

I don't believe that is correct. In fact there's pretty good research to suggest that custodial sentences inrcease recidivism. This does not really apply to the SBF case, but I shall elaborate for the general case.

There are far more burglars in their 20's than in their 50's. The predominant characteristic amongst people over the age of 50 being convicted of burglary is previous jail time for burglary.

Research has shown the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail, and to a lesser extent gaining a criminal record. People are far more often criminals by circumstance than by nature.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail

I think it’s just getting older. If they’re a recivifism risk, locking them up until they’re older can be argued to serve the public good. If they’re not, you’re right, don’t jail them. The argument is essentially against short prison sentences; either find another way to punish or commit to locking them up until they’re 60.

[Lerc]

I don't think that is supported by the evidence. A custodial sentence can counteract any benefits of age because it isn't the age itself that matters, it's the increased life experience.

Subjecting people to a fairly brutal environment for that time provides a completely different set of experiences.

The long standing dichotomies of crime management is whether reduced crime is more, or less important, than justice. On top of this is is punishment retribution, deterrent, rehabilitation, or mere isolation.

Many people disagree on these points. Some refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some of the goals might be in conflict.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it isn't the age itself that matters, it's the increased life experience

I’ll track down the paper, but I don’t think this is true. Older people are just less criminally inclined. Across the board.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible

The goals of penal sanctions are “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation” [1].

Bankman-Fried is a sociopath. He isn’t going to be rehabilitated, his continuing pursuit of a pardon proves that. The benefits in jailing him are mainly in the first three: retribution, deterrence and incapacitation.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB1...