45 ms·

We really need to bring back corporal punishment, both for petty crimes and white collar crimes. The prison sentences don't make sense for the petty crimes, and

We really need to bring back corporal punishment, both for petty crimes and white collar crimes. The prison sentences don't make sense for the petty crimes, and the fines don't make sense for the white collar crimes. We need to legalize public caning and the stocks.

Henchman21 3mo ago
Along with this we need the revocation of corporate charters and the liquidation of all assets belonging to the owners of any corp that is dissolved in this manner. The penalty for fucking over the public in general should be a lifetime of poverty.
- devilbunny 3mo ago
  The owners of corporations are mostly pension funds and the like.
  - mlsu 3mo ago
    Arguably that is worse. If a criminal misuses his own resources to commit crimes and then you take that away from them, it only affects him. The companies should be liquidated still. That would put the incentives in the correct order.
    - devilbunny 3mo ago
      > If a criminal misuses his own resources to commit crimes and then you take that away from them, it only affects him. There is certainly a case to be made here for “if it seems too good to be true…”, but realistically we are not going to impoverish the retired teachers of X state because X state chose poorly.
  - unethical_ban 3mo ago
    Yet another issue with the modern US iteration of capitalism. The intentional design of the US stock market for people to depend on it for retirement, instead of getting enough wages to save their money risk-free or with government benefits. Pushing 401k and IRA, making it so that's the only viable way (other than having a high-6-digit wage) to live comfortably in retirement, is a detriment to a healthy society.
    - lesuorac 3mo ago
      What version of capitalism wouldn't have the problem of risky investments paying out more than safe ones? The people with better ROI are just going to outbid the ones with a worse ROI for their retirement spending so if you just invest it into T-Bills you'll do worse than inflation.
      - unethical_ban 3mo ago
        I'd say a better version is one where the average citizen does not have to *rely* on a boom-bust, unregulated financial system to secure their ability to survive in retirement. Through tax, fiscal and monetary policy it would be better if people could rely on government services and normal wages to get through their elder years.
        gustavus 3mo ago
        We have Social Security though and that doesn't seem to be working much better.
        devilbunny 3mo ago
        Yeah, before capitalism you just worked until you died, or your children took care of you. That’s still an option, but you must have kids and they must like you.
  - zie 3mo ago
    Sort of True-ish. There are lots of different kinds of ownership. Ownership with little to no say in how things are run to ownership with basically all the control. If you are an owner with all the control, i.e. you are on the board or in corporate leadership(CEO/CFO/etc), then hey guess what,there is a really great cell here at the local prison just waiting for you, depending on how involved you were. If you are an owner with little to no control, i.e. most shareholders that just vote for the board, etc. The assets would get liquidated, bond/debt holders would get paid back, and then anything left over would go to these shareholders. This would incentivize shareholders to care more about what they are owning, this is a good thing. Even if it's pension funds and individual retirement accounts. This would get sorted pretty quickly as soon as the new normal is known and adjusted for. SpaceX for example just went public, but if you read the docs, the control was not given to the public. Elon Musk 100% controls SpaceX still. Even if every public shareholder unanimously agrees against Elon Musk, guess what happens? Elon Musk still gets his way. I don't know what the parent comment was thinking, but to my mind, the ones with the most control get the worst of the consequences. So Pension Funds/etc that hold little to no control would get paid out before those with more control.
    - Henchman21 3mo ago
      I think to state it succinctly, the thing I was thinking was: "the people that make the bad decisions should bear the consequences".
      - zie 3mo ago
        That generally turns out to be the same thing as me, just said more succinctly. I agree with your thinking.
    - jackb4040 3mo ago
      This whole thread is a fascinating exercise. I'm watching HN derive Lenin's "What is to be Done?" from first principles.
  - nitwit005 3mo ago
    Good. It's purely positive if they take losses from investing in companies engaging in fraud, as it'll encourage them not to do that.
- lesuorac 3mo ago
  I didn't check, but I don't think the corporate charter for this companies allows for fraud. Not sure what the penalty for doing things you weren't incorporated for but seems reasonable for me that the liability doesn't rest with the corporation.
john_strinlai 3mo ago
>the fines don't make sense for the white collar crimes. why do we need to jump to caning instead of increasing the fines to something more than an operating expense? in this case, if the fine was 1000x the profits instead of the other way around, the problem would be solved, right?
- bs7280 3mo ago
  Executives will be more afraid of being sent to prison for criminal charges, than having someone else's money get spent on fines. We can do both - increase the fines and set a precedent of arresting executives when their company does criminal things.
  - john_strinlai 3mo ago
    sure, prison time for some criminal stuff is cool too. i am more pushing back against the call for corporal punishment like caning
    - jachee 3mo ago
      What if I told you that prison is also corporal punishment?
      - john_strinlai 3mo ago
        i tried to be more specific with the “like caning” part
    - jackb4040 3mo ago
      I have no moral objection, but it would just change the composition of CEOs as a group. Instead of just selecting for sociopaths, we'd start selecting for sociopaths with high pain tolerance.
  - atmavatar 3mo ago
    In a large enough organization with many layers to it, it very well may be that executives were neither involved nor aware of criminal wrongdoing, and even when they are, you'll never find sufficient evidence to charge them. That's largely the point behind performing criminal acts as a business and why there's so much white-collar crime. At least if you set fines to a level that such crimes are rarely if ever profitable, you can both remove the incentive for the organization to commit them as well as introduce a passive internal mechanism to prevent them in the first place.
tancop 3mo ago
we dont need new punishments, the system is just backwards. for things like shoplifting and vandalism it should be double or triple damages with no prison. corporate fraud, cartels, pollution, big time tax evasion has to come with 20+ year sentences and fines based on your income like a traffic violation in norway. flat fines just dont work when the criminal is rich. in general we should be a lot more strict on sexual crimes (sa, trafficking, child abuse but not voluntary prostitution) and white collar/economic ones including wage theft, but less strict on drugs and property. drug possession and non commercial digital piracy should be decriminalized. violent crimes are mostly in the right place, the big problem there is racist prosecutors and ineffective anti gang programs not the laws themselves but we need to remove death penalty/life without parole everywhere they still exist. the point is we need a rebalance not a whole new untested mechanic.
- DaedalusII 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wetmore 3mo ago
    They get to pick the sentencing they are aiming for, and that can depend on race.
  - LadyCailin 3mo ago
    They absolutely get to pick. They pick which cases they choose to prosecute, plea bargain, or dismiss, as well as what sentence they choose to ask for.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
    They have discretion to not prosecute. I was nearly killed and left with significant injuries. The police conspired to undercharge and the prosecutor DGAF.
  - mcmcmc 3mo ago
    1) they can be selective with which arrests result in charges 2) prosecutors can tell police straight up what they will or won’t prosecute, which affects what crimes cops will investigate or make an arrest for
forshaper 3mo ago
And rotten tomato pelting would probably helpfully lower the rate of people turning their resentments into content.
the__alchemist 3mo ago
Alternatively: (As stated in the other replies) jail execs.
geodel 3mo ago
I'll start this punishment from elementary schools onwards. Early punishment will prevent later crimes.
- Ekaros 3mo ago
  Only effective way to protect victims from bullies is to imprison the bullies. No excuses. In todays 24/7 surveillance sufficient evidence should be reachable.
skeeter2020 3mo ago
except that was never used against the powerful and wealthy, just the same poor who pay the price today.

Henchman21 3mo ago

Along with this we need the revocation of corporate charters and the liquidation of all assets belonging to the owners of any corp that is dissolved in this manner. The penalty for fucking over the public in general should be a lifetime of poverty.

devilbunny 3mo ago
The owners of corporations are mostly pension funds and the like.
- mlsu 3mo ago
  Arguably that is worse. If a criminal misuses his own resources to commit crimes and then you take that away from them, it only affects him. The companies should be liquidated still. That would put the incentives in the correct order.
  - devilbunny 3mo ago
    > If a criminal misuses his own resources to commit crimes and then you take that away from them, it only affects him. There is certainly a case to be made here for “if it seems too good to be true…”, but realistically we are not going to impoverish the retired teachers of X state because X state chose poorly.
- unethical_ban 3mo ago
  Yet another issue with the modern US iteration of capitalism. The intentional design of the US stock market for people to depend on it for retirement, instead of getting enough wages to save their money risk-free or with government benefits. Pushing 401k and IRA, making it so that's the only viable way (other than having a high-6-digit wage) to live comfortably in retirement, is a detriment to a healthy society.
  - lesuorac 3mo ago
    What version of capitalism wouldn't have the problem of risky investments paying out more than safe ones? The people with better ROI are just going to outbid the ones with a worse ROI for their retirement spending so if you just invest it into T-Bills you'll do worse than inflation.
    - unethical_ban 3mo ago
      I'd say a better version is one where the average citizen does not have to *rely* on a boom-bust, unregulated financial system to secure their ability to survive in retirement. Through tax, fiscal and monetary policy it would be better if people could rely on government services and normal wages to get through their elder years.
      - gustavus 3mo ago
        We have Social Security though and that doesn't seem to be working much better.
      - devilbunny 3mo ago
        Yeah, before capitalism you just worked until you died, or your children took care of you. That’s still an option, but you must have kids and they must like you.
- zie 3mo ago
  Sort of True-ish. There are lots of different kinds of ownership. Ownership with little to no say in how things are run to ownership with basically all the control. If you are an owner with all the control, i.e. you are on the board or in corporate leadership(CEO/CFO/etc), then hey guess what,there is a really great cell here at the local prison just waiting for you, depending on how involved you were. If you are an owner with little to no control, i.e. most shareholders that just vote for the board, etc. The assets would get liquidated, bond/debt holders would get paid back, and then anything left over would go to these shareholders. This would incentivize shareholders to care more about what they are owning, this is a good thing. Even if it's pension funds and individual retirement accounts. This would get sorted pretty quickly as soon as the new normal is known and adjusted for. SpaceX for example just went public, but if you read the docs, the control was not given to the public. Elon Musk 100% controls SpaceX still. Even if every public shareholder unanimously agrees against Elon Musk, guess what happens? Elon Musk still gets his way. I don't know what the parent comment was thinking, but to my mind, the ones with the most control get the worst of the consequences. So Pension Funds/etc that hold little to no control would get paid out before those with more control.
  - Henchman21 3mo ago
    I think to state it succinctly, the thing I was thinking was: "the people that make the bad decisions should bear the consequences".
    - zie 3mo ago
      That generally turns out to be the same thing as me, just said more succinctly. I agree with your thinking.
  - jackb4040 3mo ago
    This whole thread is a fascinating exercise. I'm watching HN derive Lenin's "What is to be Done?" from first principles.
- nitwit005 3mo ago
  Good. It's purely positive if they take losses from investing in companies engaging in fraud, as it'll encourage them not to do that.
lesuorac 3mo ago
I didn't check, but I don't think the corporate charter for this companies allows for fraud. Not sure what the penalty for doing things you weren't incorporated for but seems reasonable for me that the liability doesn't rest with the corporation.

john_strinlai 3mo ago

>the fines don't make sense for the white collar crimes. why do we need to jump to caning instead of increasing the fines to something more than an operating expense? in this case, if the fine was 1000x the profits instead of the other way around, the problem would be solved, right?

bs7280 3mo ago
Executives will be more afraid of being sent to prison for criminal charges, than having someone else's money get spent on fines. We can do both - increase the fines and set a precedent of arresting executives when their company does criminal things.
- john_strinlai 3mo ago
  sure, prison time for some criminal stuff is cool too. i am more pushing back against the call for corporal punishment like caning
  - jachee 3mo ago
    What if I told you that prison is also corporal punishment?
    - john_strinlai 3mo ago
      i tried to be more specific with the “like caning” part
  - jackb4040 3mo ago
    I have no moral objection, but it would just change the composition of CEOs as a group. Instead of just selecting for sociopaths, we'd start selecting for sociopaths with high pain tolerance.
- atmavatar 3mo ago
  In a large enough organization with many layers to it, it very well may be that executives were neither involved nor aware of criminal wrongdoing, and even when they are, you'll never find sufficient evidence to charge them. That's largely the point behind performing criminal acts as a business and why there's so much white-collar crime. At least if you set fines to a level that such crimes are rarely if ever profitable, you can both remove the incentive for the organization to commit them as well as introduce a passive internal mechanism to prevent them in the first place.

tancop 3mo ago

we dont need new punishments, the system is just backwards. for things like shoplifting and vandalism it should be double or triple damages with no prison. corporate fraud, cartels, pollution, big time tax evasion has to come with 20+ year sentences and fines based on your income like a traffic violation in norway. flat fines just dont work when the criminal is rich. in general we should be a lot more strict on sexual crimes (sa, trafficking, child abuse but not voluntary prostitution) and white collar/economic ones including wage theft, but less strict on drugs and property. drug possession and non commercial digital piracy should be decriminalized. violent crimes are mostly in the right place, the big problem there is racist prosecutors and ineffective anti gang programs not the laws themselves but we need to remove death penalty/life without parole everywhere they still exist. the point is we need a rebalance not a whole new untested mechanic.

DaedalusII 3mo ago
[flagged]
- wetmore 3mo ago
  They get to pick the sentencing they are aiming for, and that can depend on race.
- LadyCailin 3mo ago
  They absolutely get to pick. They pick which cases they choose to prosecute, plea bargain, or dismiss, as well as what sentence they choose to ask for.
- kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
  They have discretion to not prosecute. I was nearly killed and left with significant injuries. The police conspired to undercharge and the prosecutor DGAF.
- mcmcmc 3mo ago
  1) they can be selective with which arrests result in charges 2) prosecutors can tell police straight up what they will or won’t prosecute, which affects what crimes cops will investigate or make an arrest for

forshaper 3mo ago

And rotten tomato pelting would probably helpfully lower the rate of people turning their resentments into content.

the__alchemist 3mo ago

Alternatively: (As stated in the other replies) jail execs.

geodel 3mo ago

I'll start this punishment from elementary schools onwards. Early punishment will prevent later crimes.

Ekaros 3mo ago
Only effective way to protect victims from bullies is to imprison the bullies. No excuses. In todays 24/7 surveillance sufficient evidence should be reachable.

skeeter2020 3mo ago

except that was never used against the powerful and wealthy, just the same poor who pay the price today.