The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
But punishing a criminal is about morality and justice, not about economy. I strongly disagree with the idea that a child molester and trafficker who is a "productive member of society" should receive different treatment from a normal worker, or an unemployed person, who committed the same crime.
Does wealth give you different rights? How large must the sum be to hurt a rich man?
Is that really justice?
The idea of giving the money to mental health services or research or other useful institutions sounds reasonable, but I don't agree at all with people receiving different treatment based on their wealth and economic value.
Edited: Forgot to say, "many times more productive than all of his victims combined" is not a phrase I would use to explain this concept to parents whose daughters have been sexually abused by that person or his "business partners".
But punishing a criminal is about morality and justice, not about economy. I strongly disagree with the idea that a child molester and trafficker who is a "productive member of society" should receive different treatment from a normal worker, or an unemployed person, who committed the same crime.
Does wealth give you different rights? How large must the sum be to hurt a rich man?
Is that really justice?
The idea of giving the money to mental health services or research or other useful institutions sounds reasonable, but I don't agree at all with people receiving different treatment based on their wealth and economic value.
Edited: Forgot to say, "many times more productive than all of his victims combined" is not a phrase I would use to explain this concept to parents whose daughters have been sexually abused by that person or his "business partners".
Is justice 'vengeance' or making people atone? I guarantee that fines hurt the rich in their minds almost as much, if not more, than prison time. Money is the main focus of their lives. The idea that the money that they 'earned' will be given to people that they deam as 'unworthy' might actually be worse than prison...
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
It is contrary but there is no punishment specified for countries that defy the 'law'. Therefore it's a 'wink, wink'. If you're a country that has nothing the West wants then crickets. If you do have something the West wants then it's the full fury of NATO!
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
I'm not a liberal, dude. And if you could point to any equally extreme views to "We should coddle the rich when they rape children" and "it'd be reasonable to imprison and enslave asylum seekers" that I've promoted or defended, that'd be fantastic. And yes, I do denigrate harmful points of view like that. Everyone should.
Also I know Russians who don't promote such awfulness, so trying to claim it's because he's Russian is meaningless as a defense. There's nothing inherent to that culture that demands such things.
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
I'm not a liberal, dude. And if you could point to any equally extreme views to "We should coddle the rich when they rape children" and "it'd be reasonable to imprison and enslave asylum seekers" that I've promoted or defended, that'd be fantastic.
Fining their asses is not 'coddling'. Far more good can be done with their money than can be done by imprisoning them. I guess you could do both, but that might have dire consequences for the people that they employ...
Edit: That's precisely why I liked @Ardanis idea of making them pay in ways that are not the norm...
Edit of the edit: Avoiding prison by paying the fine might be a good way to tap into their Swiss Bank accounts that are otherwise untouchable...
I wouldn't scale back jail time for the wealthy and powerful, but I do see the value in imposing monetary fines as a percentage of their net worth. It's definitely a more powerful incentive. I'm generally in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, and it would be even better if wealthy criminals were the first to chip in.
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
I'm not a liberal, dude. And if you could point to any equally extreme views to "We should coddle the rich when they rape children" and "it'd be reasonable to imprison and enslave asylum seekers" that I've promoted or defended, that'd be fantastic.
Fining their asses is not 'coddling'. Far more good can be done with their money than can be done by imprisoning them. I guess you could do both, but that might have dire consequences for the people that they employ...
Edit: That's precisely why I liked @Ardanis idea of making them pay in ways that are not the norm...
Monetary fines are literally a slap on the wrist if you're wealthy enough. Ardanis' idea simply coddles the rich and at worst gives them a ticket price to atrocity. Just how morally bankrupt do you have to be to say "Well, I know he raped children and had parties where others raped children, but insuring he can't can't continue to prey on children ever again would actually be the worst possible outcome?"
I initially assumed he wasn't talking about Epstein specifically, but if he was that's.....insane. The guy was a serial child predator and was for all intents and purposes keeping then as sex slaves to hire out to other people. Epstein made his fortune by running a hedge-fund. If we believe that job is of such inherent worth to society and that punishment for that is going to be a monetary fine (even if it was 100% of his wealth), then we're way farther gone than I even imagined. Are people seriously suggesting the rich not face prison time and only the poor?? This is a legitimate argument?? How does that do anything but incentivize them to hurt MORE people to make MORE money to cover their punishments?? This is easily the most radical thing I've heard proposed on this forum. It's basically advocating for a caste system. I mean, we've heard alot of things, but "rich peope should be immune from incarceration because they are too valuable" is at the top of the list. They very nearly ARE anyway because of the legal defenses they can hire, but apparently there are folks who just want to codify it into law?? I don't even know how to respond to an argument like this. It assumes one's only inherant worth is measured by their bank account.
Also, Epstein himself CLEARLY disagreed with this reasoning. He didn't kill himself because his money was getting taken away (though it may have been eventually). He killed himself because he was pretty much guaranteed never to be a free man again. So it's quite clear what HE thought was a greater punishment.
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
I'm not a liberal, dude. And if you could point to any equally extreme views to "We should coddle the rich when they rape children" and "it'd be reasonable to imprison and enslave asylum seekers" that I've promoted or defended, that'd be fantastic.
Fining their asses is not 'coddling'. Far more good can be done with their money than can be done by imprisoning them. I guess you could do both, but that might have dire consequences for the people that they employ...
Edit: That's precisely why I liked @Ardanis idea of making them pay in ways that are not the norm...
Monetary fines are literally a slap on the wrist if you're wealthy enough. Ardanis' idea simply coddles the rich and at worst gives them a ticket price to atrocity. Just how morally bankrupt do you have to be to say "Well, I know he raped children and had parties where others raped children, but insuring he can't can't continue to prey on children ever again would actually be the worst possible outcome?" Do conservatives just worship wealth with no concern for harm done to others?
That solely depends on the fine. If a fine to avoid jail helps potentially thousands, how is that a 'slap on the wrist'? It sucks that a minor marijuana offense yields more actual jail time, but a marijuana dealer can't potentially help thousands with their wealth (unless they're part of a cartel maybe). How does treating them the same help anybody other than the 'feelings' of the few people directly affected. Keep in mind that the 'directly affected' also have their civil suits that generally give them financial recompense as well...
I'm being pragmatic, nothing more. Have you noticed that outrage at human rights violations comes primarily from the developed countries? I.e. the ones with sufficient economies to take care of all basic needs, when people can afford to worry about someone else's rights instead of getting dinner for their family? I wonder how long they'd be able to sustain that, if they let all the refugees in and jail all the rich offenders.
Is justice 'vengeance' or making people atone? I guarantee that fines hurt the rich in their minds almost as much, if not more, than prison time. Money is the main focus of their lives. The idea that the money that they 'earned' will be given to people that they deam as 'unworthy' might actually be worse than prison...
Exactly. When I read in news that some cafe owner pledged support to some political course by prohibiting entry to their opponents, I laughed my ass off hard. Just put on a sign "half the income will be donated to X" and see how many of them will be willing to enter
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Is the idea being proposed here that if you are rich enough you can murder or rape someone because you might EMPLOY people making you too valuable to jail, thus we deal with the situation by strictly monetary compensation to the victim's or their familes?? Why don't we just let the rich hunt people for sport??
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Is the idea being proposed here that if you are rich enough you can murder or rape someone because you might EMPLOY people making you too valuable to jail, thus we deal with the situation by strictly monetary compensation to the victim's or their familes?? Why don't we just let the rich hunt people sport??
Unless you want to elucidate on how we can raid Swiss Bank accounts then yes, I think that helping thousands of people is more important than punishing one. Life isn't fair. It's a Hell of a lot better to improve the lives of thousands than it is to punish one. Sorry but your math doesn't add up...
Edit: Do you not think that Epstein, a multi-millionaire, wouldn't give up half of his wealth to avoid prison? That would be hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the lives of not only his victims, but countless victims of lesser predators. Do the friggin' math. There isn't even any indication that he would have preferred that over suicide. Rich people don't think like us...
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Is the idea being proposed here that if you are rich enough you can murder or rape someone because you might EMPLOY people making you too valuable to jail, thus we deal with the situation by strictly monetary compensation to the victim's or their familes?? Why don't we just let the rich hunt people sport??
The more I read you on recent pages here, the more it feels to me like you harbor strong animosity towards the wealthy. The idea being proposed is that if you are rich enough, you can work off the damage done instead of eating rations bought with taxpayers' money.
I'm pretty sure a victim might not necessarily be very happy... Except a lot of people fall daily victims to ill fortune, yet society only wants to burn the witch.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Is the idea being proposed here that if you are rich enough you can murder or rape someone because you might EMPLOY people making you too valuable to jail, thus we deal with the situation by strictly monetary compensation to the victim's or their familes?? Why don't we just let the rich hunt people sport??
The more I read you on recent pages here, the more it feels to me like you harbor strong animosity towards the wealthy.
If that's the take you have from my question then I'm not sure there is any reasonable ground for conversation. You are advocating immunity from imprisonment to people with a certain income level and/or workforce size that they pay, and I asked if rape and murder are going to be included as well, and the response is "you have too much animosity towards rich people". At this point I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is an elaborate trolling attempt or satire.
There's really no reason that the law couldn't require both imprisonment and confiscation. And for what it's worth, when a doctor commits medical malpractice, we do not allow him or her to continue practicing on the grounds that they can still help others. The reason is because neither a doctor not a millionaire is irreplaceable.
If a wealthy businessperson goes to jail, that business does not suddenly go bankrupt and all the workers get laid off: another person takes control of that business, a person who is not a criminal. That is a net gain for humankind.
Epstein was a billionaire. His death or imprisonment doesn't mean that a billion dollars ceases to exist from our world, nor does it mean that we'll be missing out on another billion dollars of growth in the future. It means someone else takes his place.
If that's the take you have from my question then I'm not sure there is any reasonable ground for conversation. You are advocating immunity from imprisonment to people with a certain income level and/or workforce size that they pay, and I asked if rape and murder are going to be included as well, and the response is "you have too much animosity towards rich people". At this point I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is an elaborate trolling attempt or satire.
If your take on my thought is that wealthy should be allowed to rape, murder and play manhunt, then yes, I do think it's prejudice. Did you not notice I specifically noted it shouldn't be total freedom like before?
There's really no reason that the law could require both imprisonment and confiscation. And for what it's worth, when a doctor commits medical malpractice, we do not allow him or her to continue practicing on the grounds that they can still help others. The reason is because neither a doctor not a millionaire is irreplaceable.
If a wealthy businessperson goes to jail, that business does not suddenly go bankrupt and all the workers get laid off: another person takes control of that business, a person who is not a criminal. That is a net gain for humankind.
Epstein was a billionaire. His death or imprisonment doesn't mean that a billion dollars ceases to exist from our world, nor does it mean that we'll be missing out on another billion dollars of growth in the future. It means someone else takes his place.
Yeah, but he might have been inclined to give up half or more of that wealth to avoid incarceration. What's better, one man in prison getting raped because he 'deserves' it, or helping thousands of people because he's an asshole that has access to protected wealth that can help countless victims of sexual predation? I know what my answer would be...
Corruption would allow those in power to go after the rich with fabricated crimes to collect their wealth. If their wealth had nothing do with their crimes, it honestly shouldn't be touched.
Corruption would allow those in power to go after the rich with fabricated crimes to collect their wealth. If their wealth had nothing do with their crimes, it honestly shouldn't be touched.
Wealth = power. I'd say that wealth has a lot to do with their having access to the crimes they commit (and I'm a conservative). Let juries decide is my opinion. If they're guilty take their wealth instead of their freedom (since it has to be given up voluntarily with safe-havens and such). I guarantee that would decrease the crimes far more than our current, corrupt, practices where their wealth can buy them minimum security for a far-less period of time than your backwoods marijuana dealer...
Wealth = power. I'd say that wealth has a lot to do with their having access to the crimes they commit (and I'm a conservative). Let juries decide is my opinion. If they're guilty take their wealth instead of their freedom (since it has to be given up voluntarily with safe-havens and such). I guarantee that would decrease the crimes far more than our current, corrupt, practices where their wealth can buy them minimum security for a far-less period of time than your backwoods marijuana dealer...
It's quite the same in Russia, really. Probably worse though, as nobody's even surprised when another rich kid drives over a pedestrian then gets released almost immediately. If it's gonna stay that way, with money buying defense and judges, and I see no sign the society's gonna change anytime soon, then let money do the work instead of talking.
And for what it's worth, when a doctor commits medical malpractice, we do not allow him or her to continue practicing on the grounds that they can still help others.
Even this is arbitrary. A doctor who commits a crime is still a doctor who could help people. Making them work off their crime(s) could actually save or improve many lives. The licensing thing is just a bullshit AMA power trip...
Edit: I'm pretty sure the 'doctors' doing electroshock treatments, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on blacks and MK Ultra were fully licensed by the AMA (and enjoyed a long, fully pensioned retirement) but some overworked schlep working in his 16th straight hour in the ER will be demonized for life for making one mistake...
"Rich people shouldn't be put in prison ever, so what if they commit murder or rape children? They are too important to be inconvienanced."
"Wow, that's legitimately awful, I can't believe you said that."
"How dare you look down on this person's viewpoint."
Politics in a nutshell.
Pragmatism isn't evil. Nobody is saying rich people shouldn't be punished. Taking away their wealth is a legitimate punishment that they would have to 'willingly' agree to since their real wealth is generally protected. If you want to argue that we should target Switzerland and other safe-havens in order to confiscate their wealth against their will then we can discuss that. Otherwise explain to me how millions of dollars to help victims isn't inherently better than imprisoning one man. I'm serious here, I want to hear your reasoning...
I mean, this entire conversation (which I still am holding out hope is an elbaorate joke) is ignoring the fact that it basically IS this way right now. Epstein himself was given a sweetheart deal the first time that NO person of lesser means would have been afforded. A Cabinet Secretary had to resign over it. How are we not talking about how this basically guarantees they will keep committing the same crime until they run out of money?? I still can't believe this conversation is actually happening. Is it Sunday?? Am I still on Earth??
I mean, this entire conversation (which I still am holding out hope is an elbaorate joke) is ignoring the fact that it basically IS this way right now. Epstein himself was given a sweetheart deal the first time that NO person of lesser means would have been afforded. A Cabinet Secretary had to resign over it. How are we not talking about how this basically guarantees they will keep committing the same crime until they run out of money?? I still can't believe this conversation is actually happening. Is it Sunday?? Am I still on Earth??
Exactly! If we'd taken away most of his f'ing fortune the first time and put it to good use we might not have heard about his ass again. Hit rich people where it really hurts, their riches. I can't believe you don't believe that myself considering your opinion of rich people. Leave them their riches and they'll get away with all kinds of shit even if they're in prison. Rob them f'ing blind in order to avoid getting ass-raped and they literally can't do it again...
Edit: Especially if you put them on probation with the understanding that if they do it again they're going to get ass-raped anyway.
Yup, only poor people get jail time. Rich people should just pay fines, which they can easiyl afford. Oh wait, it already IS that way.
Where did I say 'easily afford'? Rob them f'ing blind was my exact wording...
Edit: I'm sure Epstein's kids are paragons of virtue, but they shouldn't benefit from wealth accrued from their dad's prostituting young girls. Right now, most of this dickhead's money will likely stay with his family. Another reason for his convenient suicide...
Comments
The guy was paying money to rape children, and your proposed response is to just charge him more money. This makes me nauseous.
Does wealth give you different rights? How large must the sum be to hurt a rich man?
Is that really justice?
The idea of giving the money to mental health services or research or other useful institutions sounds reasonable, but I don't agree at all with people receiving different treatment based on their wealth and economic value.
Edited: Forgot to say, "many times more productive than all of his victims combined" is not a phrase I would use to explain this concept to parents whose daughters have been sexually abused by that person or his "business partners".
Is justice 'vengeance' or making people atone? I guarantee that fines hurt the rich in their minds almost as much, if not more, than prison time. Money is the main focus of their lives. The idea that the money that they 'earned' will be given to people that they deam as 'unworthy' might actually be worse than prison...
Ardanis thinks detaining and enslaving asylum seekers is not contradictory to the UN declaration on human rights and is the way things should be. The stuff he's posting is almost satire.
No, it's from his point of view which may be far from ours in the west since he's in Russia. I love how liberals are so quick to diminish points of view that aren't their own while also defending extremist views of the far-left because of their 'point of view'. I have news for y'all; it goes both ways...
It is contrary but there is no punishment specified for countries that defy the 'law'. Therefore it's a 'wink, wink'. If you're a country that has nothing the West wants then crickets. If you do have something the West wants then it's the full fury of NATO!
I'm not a liberal, dude. And if you could point to any equally extreme views to "We should coddle the rich when they rape children" and "it'd be reasonable to imprison and enslave asylum seekers" that I've promoted or defended, that'd be fantastic. And yes, I do denigrate harmful points of view like that. Everyone should.
Also I know Russians who don't promote such awfulness, so trying to claim it's because he's Russian is meaningless as a defense. There's nothing inherent to that culture that demands such things.
Fining their asses is not 'coddling'. Far more good can be done with their money than can be done by imprisoning them. I guess you could do both, but that might have dire consequences for the people that they employ...
Edit: That's precisely why I liked @Ardanis idea of making them pay in ways that are not the norm...
Edit of the edit: Avoiding prison by paying the fine might be a good way to tap into their Swiss Bank accounts that are otherwise untouchable...
Monetary fines are literally a slap on the wrist if you're wealthy enough. Ardanis' idea simply coddles the rich and at worst gives them a ticket price to atrocity. Just how morally bankrupt do you have to be to say "Well, I know he raped children and had parties where others raped children, but insuring he can't can't continue to prey on children ever again would actually be the worst possible outcome?"
Also, Epstein himself CLEARLY disagreed with this reasoning. He didn't kill himself because his money was getting taken away (though it may have been eventually). He killed himself because he was pretty much guaranteed never to be a free man again. So it's quite clear what HE thought was a greater punishment.
That solely depends on the fine. If a fine to avoid jail helps potentially thousands, how is that a 'slap on the wrist'? It sucks that a minor marijuana offense yields more actual jail time, but a marijuana dealer can't potentially help thousands with their wealth (unless they're part of a cartel maybe). How does treating them the same help anybody other than the 'feelings' of the few people directly affected. Keep in mind that the 'directly affected' also have their civil suits that generally give them financial recompense as well...
Exactly. When I read in news that some cafe owner pledged support to some political course by prohibiting entry to their opponents, I laughed my ass off hard. Just put on a sign "half the income will be donated to X" and see how many of them will be willing to enter
Unless you want to elucidate on how we can raid Swiss Bank accounts then yes, I think that helping thousands of people is more important than punishing one. Life isn't fair. It's a Hell of a lot better to improve the lives of thousands than it is to punish one. Sorry but your math doesn't add up...
Edit: Do you not think that Epstein, a multi-millionaire, wouldn't give up half of his wealth to avoid prison? That would be hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the lives of not only his victims, but countless victims of lesser predators. Do the friggin' math. There isn't even any indication that he would have preferred that over suicide. Rich people don't think like us...
I'm pretty sure a victim might not necessarily be very happy... Except a lot of people fall daily victims to ill fortune, yet society only wants to burn the witch.
If that's the take you have from my question then I'm not sure there is any reasonable ground for conversation. You are advocating immunity from imprisonment to people with a certain income level and/or workforce size that they pay, and I asked if rape and murder are going to be included as well, and the response is "you have too much animosity towards rich people". At this point I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is an elaborate trolling attempt or satire.
If a wealthy businessperson goes to jail, that business does not suddenly go bankrupt and all the workers get laid off: another person takes control of that business, a person who is not a criminal. That is a net gain for humankind.
Epstein was a billionaire. His death or imprisonment doesn't mean that a billion dollars ceases to exist from our world, nor does it mean that we'll be missing out on another billion dollars of growth in the future. It means someone else takes his place.
Yeah, but he might have been inclined to give up half or more of that wealth to avoid incarceration. What's better, one man in prison getting raped because he 'deserves' it, or helping thousands of people because he's an asshole that has access to protected wealth that can help countless victims of sexual predation? I know what my answer would be...
Corruption would allow those in power to go after the rich with fabricated crimes to collect their wealth. If their wealth had nothing do with their crimes, it honestly shouldn't be touched.
Wealth = power. I'd say that wealth has a lot to do with their having access to the crimes they commit (and I'm a conservative). Let juries decide is my opinion. If they're guilty take their wealth instead of their freedom (since it has to be given up voluntarily with safe-havens and such). I guarantee that would decrease the crimes far more than our current, corrupt, practices where their wealth can buy them minimum security for a far-less period of time than your backwoods marijuana dealer...
Even this is arbitrary. A doctor who commits a crime is still a doctor who could help people. Making them work off their crime(s) could actually save or improve many lives. The licensing thing is just a bullshit AMA power trip...
Edit: I'm pretty sure the 'doctors' doing electroshock treatments, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on blacks and MK Ultra were fully licensed by the AMA (and enjoyed a long, fully pensioned retirement) but some overworked schlep working in his 16th straight hour in the ER will be demonized for life for making one mistake...
"Wow, that's legitimately awful, I can't believe you said that."
"How dare you look down on this person's viewpoint."
Politics in a nutshell.
Pragmatism isn't evil. Nobody is saying rich people shouldn't be punished. Taking away their wealth is a legitimate punishment that they would have to 'willingly' agree to since their real wealth is generally protected. If you want to argue that we should target Switzerland and other safe-havens in order to confiscate their wealth against their will then we can discuss that. Otherwise explain to me how millions of dollars to help victims isn't inherently better than imprisoning one man. I'm serious here, I want to hear your reasoning...
Exactly! If we'd taken away most of his f'ing fortune the first time and put it to good use we might not have heard about his ass again. Hit rich people where it really hurts, their riches. I can't believe you don't believe that myself considering your opinion of rich people. Leave them their riches and they'll get away with all kinds of shit even if they're in prison. Rob them f'ing blind in order to avoid getting ass-raped and they literally can't do it again...
Edit: Especially if you put them on probation with the understanding that if they do it again they're going to get ass-raped anyway.
Where did I say 'easily afford'? Rob them f'ing blind was my exact wording...
Edit: I'm sure Epstein's kids are paragons of virtue, but they shouldn't benefit from wealth accrued from their dad's prostituting young girls. Right now, most of this dickhead's money will likely stay with his family. Another reason for his convenient suicide...