Comment by b_e_n_t_o_n
Comment by b_e_n_t_o_n 11 hours ago
Four years feels like a long time for this...
Comment by b_e_n_t_o_n 11 hours ago
Four years feels like a long time for this...
Yeah I know, it just feels long for what is almost a victimless crime. I'm aware the company lost money and therefore the shareholders etc etc.
I feel like 2 years would have made sense to me.
How is this a victimless crime or even almost a victimless crime? I’m confused by your post — you say it’s “almost a victimless crime” and then immediately describe who was victimized and why. So what do you mean? Just that it didn’t involve physical violence?
Length of sentence aside, your notion of victimless crime is wild.
Mugging is “almost a victimless crime” by that standard.
And this was significantly more victim-ful than that.
> actual damage
Damage is a funny word here. Yes - money was lost, but no building were destroyed, nor people physically harmed. “Actual damage” makes it sound like a lot more than lost time and a few extra contracts paid out.
Monetary damages are damages, I don't think this is particularly complicated. If I made it so you couldn't get several weeks of your wages for hours that you worked you would be rightly furious with me and feel like a victim.
> If I made it so you couldn't get several weeks of your wages for hours that you worked
This is called wage theft and I haven't seen anybody going to jail for it.
I don't condone what this person did, but I wish justice was as swift for crimes committed by the rich and powerful.
Damages in the sense that warrants compensation and likely additional punitive damages as deterrence, agreed. But monetary damages don’t seem sufficient to justify jail time in a society that likes to claim it doesn’t have debtor’s prisons.
Yes, yes, criminal law and civil law are two different things and statutes can allow or require imprisonment in a criminal sentence. But we are discussing what is morally appropriate punishment for this misdeed, not what current law allows.
I think Terry Pratchett laid it out best:
> “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"
> "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.
> "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"
> "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
> "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
> "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
I'm not sure what is meant by supervised release but there is also three years of that after the initial four. He apparently also gets a permanent record as a felon, so I imagine it'll be hard for him to find new work. Without that, can he even have health insurance? He als can't vote in elections right? Sounds like his life is frankly going to be ruined.
From a Danish perspective I think that this is rather cruel.
"Chinese national" feels like a pretty critical detail to this sentencing time.
Well, there are always two directions you can go to fix a double standard.
It was premeditated. It caused actual damage. He doesn’t appear to have done anything to stop it once is started.
He gets points for style. But this is novel behaviour that has to be discouraged.