I'm all for changing our prison system that clearly doesn't work. We should train inmates in real job-skills and make them work for that training at minimum wage. If they complete the training and have a good prison record, their convictions should be expunged so they can actually get a real job instead of being ostracized. Im not necessarily talking about violent offences, but even those people aren't necessarily evil forever. Yes, my parent's suspicions of me being a closet-liberal are 'somewhat' legit...
Edit: Color me naive but these people might be perfect for government work if they can't find jobs in the private sector. They might even be 'gasp' grateful for a chance at a normal life. Good luck convincing people like my folks on this point though...
Not that many folks in this forum will care, but @ThacoBell might appreciate the irony of this scripture vs. what is preached in most Christian pulpits these days. Many, if not most criminals are pretty young...
Psalms 25:7
“Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.”
King James Version (KJV)
@Balrog99 "Where did I say 'easily afford'? Rob them f'ing blind was my exact wording..."
So, how are you gonna get all their money? Offshore accounts/foreign bank accounts, stock market stuff. Its not like all the money is in an easily accessible bank account that can just be emptied. This also doesn't fix the problem that under this system poor people are the only ones that go to jail. Its a straight up caste system.
Not that many folks in this forum will care, but @ThacoBell might appreciate the irony of this scripture vs. what is preached in most Christian pulpits these days. Many, if not most criminals are pretty young...
Psalms 25:7
“Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.”
King James Version (KJV)
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.
Confiscation of wealth is already a standard punishment--it is called a fine (confiscation of other property is generally more context-specific). And as far as I'm aware, the enforcer of the law never gets the money personally, at least not in the U.S.
You're talking about a politician confiscating a wealthy person's money and then funneling that money into their own pocket--this is already illegal. It would be stealing public funds.
A traffic violation has nothing to do with your wealth, either, and yet you still have to pay a fine. Theoretically, a police officer could falsify evidence of a traffic violation... but that police officer wouldn't personally get the money; it would go elsewhere. If they did redirect it to themselves, that would be illegal.
I mean, if somebody wrote a law that said "senators get to directly collect fines from investigations they start," then yes, that law would let senators profit from phony investigations. But then, you'd be talking about a law that was flat-out designed to be blatantly, obviously corrupt, and it would be completely different from every other law that imposed fines.
@Balrog99: You'd have to make more than a simple mistake to lose your medical license. Generally, malpractice means you make a bad call that gets someone hurt, and in those cases, the penalty is a settlement in favor of the patient. Part of that is random, which is why there's insurance for medical malpractice. For the kind of malpractice that would cost you your license, however, you have to be a pretty freaking bad doctor, to the extent that you weren't actually going to do much good for patients--at least, not enough that it would justify taking a position that would otherwise go to another doctor.
The standards for holding a medical license are high, but they're not so unreasonable that otherwise-competent doctors get kicked out of the field due to a bad diagnosis.
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.
Yeah no thanks. If this is the future Republicans want in collaboration with Russia then that's some crap. Take a hike Moscow Mitch, we don't want more 'affluenza' defense. I guess that works in Russia but this is America we;re talking about. Just because you guys gave up, we haven't yet done that.
Rich people and a bunch of slaves.
What is a fine to a billionaire? Nothing. A million dollars is nothing. That's not justice. Get your ass in jail I guarantee that will hurt more. Epstein was in trouble with the law before and bought his way out with Trump's secretary of labor's help. By all accounts he kept up his extreme pedophile lifestyle without any problems but a couple months in prison and he killed himself.
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 had to spend the rest of today messing around with Tabletop Simulator and watching YouTube because really, it could only go downhill from there.
I'm starting to realize that it's useless to try to explain my reasoning to most of you. Incarceration as vengeance, I thought, was a conservative trait. Apparently not. My wbole point was to get these people to 'willingly' surrender much of their wealth in order to avoid prison once. I guess it's more important that you put a person in jail than to put their money to work for society. C'est la vie...
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...
I don't know how these things are handled on your side of the Atlantic. From what I've heard, medical doctors in your country get sued much more often than over here. Probably also because of the ridiculous amount of money you folks have to pay for medical care.
In my corner of the woods, there's a huge distinction between a mistake and malpractice. I don't know the correct legal terms in English, but there are simple mistakes, there is negligence, there is grave negligence.
Malpractice would mean you've ignored or violated every guideline and recommendation, so that even all your colleagues would say "there's really no excuse at all".
Anyone can make a mistake, and it's a frightening thought. But if someone makes a mistake after 16 hours of stress, and it's something where experts agree that it could have happened to others, too, then you face consequences (that is, have to pay) if the patient has come to harm, but you don't lose your license. At least not in Germany.
Examples of grave negligence where people have lost their license are cases of reaction to a wrong transfusion, if you've given the wrong blood type for example, and didn't double-check.
Or situations where you've made a decision to deviate from common or recommended standards without documenting a good reason.
That said, 24h shifts are horrible and should be forbidden. The fear of making a mistake and harming someone because you're tired is always there. Makes you kind of OCD at work.
"Could still help other people" is no reason to let someone continue. That would be acceptable in disasters, very remote areas or similar situations, but not generally. People normally aren't irreplaceable.
I think or hope that my own conscience and sense of responsibility would make me pay attention and work carefully, because I couldn't live with myself if my mistake killed or harmed another person.
But that might not always be motivation enough, and not for everyone. I mean, if people were always careful and responsible, there wouldn't be criminals, right?
Some people are selfish and greedy and inconsiderate and can only be kept in check with fear of consequences. So, the knowledge that your position, importance, power, charisma and wealth don't protect you from these consequences is important, I think.
I'm not so sure if it really hurts rich people less or more to lose money. I'd say "come on, a few millions means nothing to him", but if that were the case, he wouldn't have gotten that rich in the first place. Still, it feels like people buying themselves out of consequences.
Besides, in case of the kind of crimes Epstein has committed, prison is not only about punishment. It's also about protecting others from such predators. Or do you think that paying a large sum of money would have turned him or others like him into another person who would never, ever do it again?
Edit: Realized now that @jjstraka34 has already brought up the last point.
For me Incarcerations serves 3 purposes, allow of them important.
Deterrence, so that others will not commit the same crime
Protection of the public from the criminal repeating the crime
Rehabilitation
Vengeance does not need to be part of this.
I think none of these three purposes is served adequately if rich people only need to pay money and have to suffer being observed.
Deterrence: to some rich people losing money is the ultimate punishment. Others see it as means to an end, and would see imprisonment as worse. So I think there should both be a fine (proportion to wealth/income) and prison time (independently of wealth).
Protection of the public: works much better in jail, than with simple being under observation. Also constant surveillance would necessarily include at times everyone that has to interact with the criminal, which would impinge on their rights.
Rehabilitation: prison time gives time for reflection and access to psychological help. Well, at least it should - the US criminal justice system is obviously not good at this.
As for willingly surrender wealth I do not see how this is possible. If you know where the money is, then the state can usually get access to it. If it is hidden, how should the justice system know how much to ask for? I don't see how "fine only" will result in more money than "fine and prison time".
For me Incarcerations serves 3 purposes, allow of them important.
Deterrence, so that others will not commit the same crime
Protection of the public from the criminal repeating the crime
Rehabilitation
Vengeance does not need to be part of this.
I think none of these three purposes is served adequately if rich people only need to pay money and have to suffer being observed.
Deterrence: to some rich people losing money is the ultimate punishment. Others see it as means to an end, and would see imprisonment as worse. So I think there should both be a fine (proportion to wealth/income) and prison time (independently of wealth).
Protection of the public: works much better in jail, than with simple being under observation. Also constant surveillance would necessarily include at times everyone that has to interact with the criminal, which would impinge on their rights.
Rehabilitation: prison time gives time for reflection and access to psychological help. Well, at least it should - the US criminal justice system is obviously not good at this.
As for willingly surrender wealth I do not see how this is possible. If you know where the money is, then the state can usually get access to it. If it is hidden, how should the justice system know how much to ask for? I don't see how "fine only" will result in more money than "fine and prison time".
Not necessarily 'hidden' but inaccessible. Swiss banks and such is what I was referring to. Since my idea is obviously as popular as a lead balloon I'm going to let this go...
Epstein was under surveillance the first time when he got his lenient deal. He was supposed to do check-ins with the NYPD. For reasons that defy all explanation, he was allowed to skip these DOZENS of times with no consequence. A poor person who misses one meeting with their parole officer will likely have a warrant issued for them that day. Again, if people want this tiered system, they basically already have it. It is simply done off the books rather than officially.
I'm starting to realize that it's useless to try to explain my reasoning to most of you. Incarceration as vengeance, I thought, was a conservative trait. Apparently not. My wbole point was to get these people to 'willingly' surrender much of their wealth in order to avoid prison once. I guess it's more important that you put a person in jail than to put their money to work for society. C'est la vie...
@Balrog99 for what it's worth I have sympathy with your position, although I don't agree with it. The idea of the greater good was included in most legal systems in the past, even for major crimes such as murder - think of the concept of 'weregild'. There were also a range of different legal systems depending on social position (so only nobles could judge nobles, the clergy had separate courts etc). Over time though systems have generally moved towards the philosophy that everyone should be treated equally, rather than having separate laws for the rich (that philosophy of course does not always get carried through in practice).
There are still lots of hold-overs even in the current system though of that older legal concept. For instance it's not unusual in cases of severe company malpractice for the company to pay a huge fine in order to avoid any of the directors being prosecuted personally. There are separate courts for service personnel (though that is also under attack) and of course we've discussed extensively the fact that the US president is currently immune from prosecution . Tax recovery is another area where in many cases decisions are taken to maximise the financial recovery rather than to apply the law.
While the pragmatic position is a perfectly reasonable argument, I'm not personally comfortable with the idea that a person can buy themselves out of trouble - it seems to me that in principle everyone should be subject to the same law. However, that doesn't mean that the law couldn't be changed in order to get closer to the results you want. As @semiticgod said it's already possible under the law to have fines in addition to other punishments, rather than only one or the other. There have also been experiments in the past to scale fines according to wealth rather than having fixed figures and that's something I think would be worth taking a closer look at.
@Balrog99: I think there's great reason to explain your reasoning to folks here. I've personally learned a lot from it, even if I agree with it very rarely.
I'm starting to realize that it's useless to try to explain my reasoning to most of you. Incarceration as vengeance, I thought, was a conservative trait. Apparently not. My wbole point was to get these people to 'willingly' surrender much of their wealth in order to avoid prison once. I guess it's more important that you put a person in jail than to put their money to work for society. C'est la vie...
Wanting to remove predators from having access to victims isn't a vengeance thing. It's a "I don't want to facilitate danger" thing. Letting him buy his way out of prison is not a just solution.
I also can't speak for anyone else but I didn't say anything about what to do with his wealth. Given that I consider that much wealth to in and of itself be exploitation and unethical, I don't think anyone should be worth half a billion dollars or more, and I don't believe anyone has ever done work that would rightfully earn that amount of money.
I'm starting to realize that it's useless to try to explain my reasoning to most of you. Incarceration as vengeance, I thought, was a conservative trait. Apparently not. My wbole point was to get these people to 'willingly' surrender much of their wealth in order to avoid prison once. I guess it's more important that you put a person in jail than to put their money to work for society. C'est la vie...
Wanting to remove predators from having access to victims isn't a vengeance thing. It's a "I don't want to facilitate danger" thing. Letting him buy his way out of prison is not a just solution.
I also can't speak for anyone else but I didn't say anything about what to do with his wealth. Given that I consider that much wealth to in and of itself be exploitation and unethical, I don't think anyone should be worth half a billion dollars or more, and I don't believe anyone has ever done work that would rightfully earn that amount of money.
If I came uo with an invention that was so cool that everybody in the world wanted one and I made $0.25 profit on each unit, I'd be a billionaire...
Very few billionaires actually invented anything. Most of them just own empires that others built up over time. Even the handful of billionaires who are actually entrepreneurs, folks like Gates and Bezos and Zuckerberg, scarcely invented their product or service--they took over the industry when the industry was tiny or they created a marginal improvement that got them a few inches over their competitors.
Just because someone happens to own a spectacular amount of wealth doesn't mean they caused it to come into existence. Remove any of them from history, and the billionaires and the empires they control will still exist, just with different names.
I think we have a habit of blindly worshiping the rich and powerful as if they were superior to everyone else. I have met them and I am not convinced they are.
Paying a fine to be above the law sounds a lot like Catholic Indulgences. In the past you could pay the church then sin. So if you were rich you could freely sin and just pay a fee and get in to heaven. Blessed are the rich, this goes against the whole spirit of religion, no? In 1517, Martin Luther thought so and left the Catholic Church over Indulgences.
Today you cannot technically buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one, wink. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.
Even the handful of billionaires who are actually entrepreneurs, folks like Gates and Bezos and Zuckerberg, scarcely invented their product or service--they took over the industry when the industry was tiny or they created a marginal improvement that got them a few inches over their competitors.
In Zuckerberg's case, he created a product inferior to his already established competitor and still came out ahead. Myspace gave us music and customizable pages and Facebook gives us...what? Pokes?
I don't understand the sub-argument that Epstein was a "productive" member of society. More offensive is that he's "more productive" than his victims. You know how productive children are going to be?
Dude was a hedge fund manager and it's pretty opaque about what they actually did. But even at best, that's just moving capital around. The man didn't invent anything.
In fact, the case that he was raping children systematically, seems to indicate he was anything but a productive member of society. To me, it requires a stunning naivete to believe someone is "productive" merely because they have a large bank account.
Also going to add, that morality *does* drive the economy in a positive direction. A society without trust is a society that will not have a stable economy for long.
Even the handful of billionaires who are actually entrepreneurs, folks like Gates and Bezos and Zuckerberg, scarcely invented their product or service--they took over the industry when the industry was tiny or they created a marginal improvement that got them a few inches over their competitors.
In Zuckerberg's case, he created a product inferior to his already established competitor and still came out ahead. Myspace gave us music and customizable pages and Facebook gives us...what? Pokes?
There's a reason marketing is considered the most important part of a business.
Personally I loathe marketing. I much prefer accounting, which is about as far as one can get from marketing. I guess HR is farther from accounting than marketing.
Anyways, yeah. Marketing. To quote one of my favorite sci-fi authors: "The Commonwealth was rife with foodstuffs no one would touch if he or she had an inkling of their origins. That was what advertising existed for: to make the impractical and unappetizing irresistible." -Flinx, Flinx in Flux, Alan Dean Foster
I appreciate market analysis as I appreciate any analysis, but I dislike the promotion of products with a surcharge because of brand, not because of the fitness of the product.
Marketing at its most basic level is just communication.
How do you inform the public abput this "thing"?
How does the public benefit from having this "thing"?
"thing can be anything from an idea, to a product, to awareness, to a service" Everything needs to be communicated and that is where marketing and media come in.
What many people have an issue with the is the persuasion that marketing uses to sell. People do not want to be influenced. They want to be independent in their thought and having something corrupt that independence frightens them. I can go on a full wall of text about this, but it's late/early and I don't want to bore people with my rambling.
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??
First, I didn't specifically mention Epstein, and apparently he brought it upon himself the second time. Second, I thought it should have been obvious if a crime committed was part of the person's line of work and not a side incident, it shouldn't be considered as valuable contribution to society (same as medical malpractice, actually).
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.
Pretty much, which is the point. Just that instead of buying lawyers and judges to close the case, one can pay off the debt to society legally, without feeding the corruption system. May depend on the country, but many crimes have multiple ways of punishment for committing, monetary being quite common. This is merely extending the list, and actually in line with the trend to abolish cruel forms of punishment. Like, most countries don't sentence to death anymore or cut hands off for thievery.
Marketing at its most basic level is just communication.
How do you inform the public abput this "thing"?
How does the public benefit from having this "thing"?
"thing can be anything from an idea, to a product, to awareness, to a service" Everything needs to be communicated and that is where marketing and media come in.
What many people have an issue with the is the persuasion that marketing uses to sell. People do not want to be influenced. They want to be independent in their thought and having something corrupt that independence frightens them. I can go on a full wall of text about this, but it's late/early and I don't want to bore people with my rambling.
I could agree with that if I honestly thought that companies used marketing and advertisement to inform the public about the true usefulness of their products. Preferably based on research, not fake scientific studies like giving a skin lotion to 10 women and asking them after a week if they think their skin is smoother, and then saying "this product smoothes the skin in 90% of its users after only one week!".
You can't communicate with others without influencing or being influenced. It's just not possible. Unfortunately, most marketing is about making you buy the product no matter what, and not informing you objectively of the advantages. It would be nice if marketing were based on actual information, not psychology.
I'm okay with people making money if they provide employment and produce something useful, no matter how you want to define "useful". At least something that you can grasp somehow, realize it's actually there. You can dispute whether Facebook is more useful than, let's say, water purification devices, but at least it's useful to a lot of people and not only to the owner.
Making tons of money with strategies like speculative investment stuff, which is basically nothing else than gambling and moving capital, has no value or meaning other than to increase the wealth of a person. They don't generate employment or products or services, except of course the need for more investment bankers or hedge fund managers or whatever. I doubt a society as a whole profits very much from those people. Especially since they usually don't even pay a fair amount of taxes.
@Ardanis "Pretty much, which is the point. Just that instead of buying lawyers and judges to close the case, one can pay off the debt to society legally, without feeding the corruption system."
The very system you are advocating is classic corruption. THey are called bribes.
@Ardanis "Pretty much, which is the point. Just that instead of buying lawyers and judges to close the case, one can pay off the debt to society legally, without feeding the corruption system."
The very system you are advocating is classic corruption. THey are called bribes.
Bribes are what the rich are doing now to avoid prison time. That does 'not' go into the system. That goes directly into some shady individual's pocket. What @Ardanis and I are talking about is painful, up-front, fully disclosed fines that would be used for the public good. But sure, whatever, leave it the way it is. Your way is so much better...
The problem with high-wealth individuals is the problem I encountered way back when I was looking into that little power company that won the contract to repair the Puerto Rico power grid--the guy with the money behind the company had several corporations set up and each corporation existed only to manage the money in another corporation. Ultimately, all the money was not strictly his even though he was the only one who ultimately controlled it, meaning he could hide it and look like he was worth less on paper than he was actually worth. A lot of those corporations "existed" at a post office box in several UPS centers, too, rather than an easily identifiable corporate location--he could pass money between them by mailing it to himself, if need be.
@Ardanis "Pretty much, which is the point. Just that instead of buying lawyers and judges to close the case, one can pay off the debt to society legally, without feeding the corruption system."
The very system you are advocating is classic corruption. THey are called bribes.
Bribes are what the rich are doing now to avoid prison time. That does 'not' go into the system. That goes directly into some shady individual's pocket. What @Ardanis and I are talking about is painful, up-front, fully disclosed fines that would be used for the public good. But sure, whatever, leave it the way it is. Your way is so much better...
Considering this argument originated about the Epstein case, yes, the way it is absolutely trumps your proposal. Epstein was almost certainly going to be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
The problem with high-wealth individuals is the problem I encountered way back when I was looking into that little power company that won the contract to repair the Puerto Rico power grid--the guy with the money behind the company had several corporations set up and each corporation existed only to manage the money in another corporation. Ultimately, all the money was not strictly his even though he was the only one who ultimately controlled it, meaning he could hide it and look like he was worth less on paper than he was actually worth. A lot of those corporations "existed" at a post office box in several UPS centers, too, rather than an easily identifiable corporate location--he could pass money between them by mailing it to himself, if need be.
The system is definitely stacked in their favor. Even from prison many rich people (including even drug-lords) are still able to influence their followers, make business decisions, bribe guards into special favors, and probably crap I can't even think of. That's why I think a major hit to their finances would be a far better deterrent. The reason suicide was Epstein's (apparent) decision is likely more because child-molesters are the lowest form of life in prison and treated as such. Even so, there's no absolute guarantee that some high-priced lawyer couldn't have gotten him into some cushy low-security federal prison. Maybe it would have been worth it to him to pay a few-hundred million dollars for probation with zero-tolerance for repeat offenses. I would even say people like this should have to plea 'guilty' as well, no buying your out of a felony conviction that way either.
On a somewhat less controversial note, Trump seems willing to sign some form of gun-control right now. At the very least better background checks are on the table.
What the Hell is McConnell thinking in delaying putting a bill on the Oval Office desk as soon as possible? The NRA can't be that powerful can they? Republicans (or at least McConnell in particular) are really willing to throw away all the good-will this would result in? Does the NRA have McConnell's granddaughter in their dungeon or something? I don't get it....
Comments
Edit: Color me naive but these people might be perfect for government work if they can't find jobs in the private sector. They might even be 'gasp' grateful for a chance at a normal life. Good luck convincing people like my folks on this point though...
Psalms 25:7
“Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.”
King James Version (KJV)
So, how are you gonna get all their money? Offshore accounts/foreign bank accounts, stock market stuff. Its not like all the money is in an easily accessible bank account that can just be emptied. This also doesn't fix the problem that under this system poor people are the only ones that go to jail. Its a straight up caste system.
I don't see the irony, what am I missing?
You're talking about a politician confiscating a wealthy person's money and then funneling that money into their own pocket--this is already illegal. It would be stealing public funds.
A traffic violation has nothing to do with your wealth, either, and yet you still have to pay a fine. Theoretically, a police officer could falsify evidence of a traffic violation... but that police officer wouldn't personally get the money; it would go elsewhere. If they did redirect it to themselves, that would be illegal.
I mean, if somebody wrote a law that said "senators get to directly collect fines from investigations they start," then yes, that law would let senators profit from phony investigations. But then, you'd be talking about a law that was flat-out designed to be blatantly, obviously corrupt, and it would be completely different from every other law that imposed fines.
@Balrog99: You'd have to make more than a simple mistake to lose your medical license. Generally, malpractice means you make a bad call that gets someone hurt, and in those cases, the penalty is a settlement in favor of the patient. Part of that is random, which is why there's insurance for medical malpractice. For the kind of malpractice that would cost you your license, however, you have to be a pretty freaking bad doctor, to the extent that you weren't actually going to do much good for patients--at least, not enough that it would justify taking a position that would otherwise go to another doctor.
The standards for holding a medical license are high, but they're not so unreasonable that otherwise-competent doctors get kicked out of the field due to a bad diagnosis.
Yeah no thanks. If this is the future Republicans want in collaboration with Russia then that's some crap. Take a hike Moscow Mitch, we don't want more 'affluenza' defense. I guess that works in Russia but this is America we;re talking about. Just because you guys gave up, we haven't yet done that.
Rich people and a bunch of slaves.
What is a fine to a billionaire? Nothing. A million dollars is nothing. That's not justice. Get your ass in jail I guarantee that will hurt more. Epstein was in trouble with the law before and bought his way out with Trump's secretary of labor's help. By all accounts he kept up his extreme pedophile lifestyle without any problems but a couple months in prison and he killed himself.
I had to spend the rest of today messing around with Tabletop Simulator and watching YouTube because really, it could only go downhill from there.
I don't know how these things are handled on your side of the Atlantic. From what I've heard, medical doctors in your country get sued much more often than over here. Probably also because of the ridiculous amount of money you folks have to pay for medical care.
In my corner of the woods, there's a huge distinction between a mistake and malpractice. I don't know the correct legal terms in English, but there are simple mistakes, there is negligence, there is grave negligence.
Malpractice would mean you've ignored or violated every guideline and recommendation, so that even all your colleagues would say "there's really no excuse at all".
Anyone can make a mistake, and it's a frightening thought. But if someone makes a mistake after 16 hours of stress, and it's something where experts agree that it could have happened to others, too, then you face consequences (that is, have to pay) if the patient has come to harm, but you don't lose your license. At least not in Germany.
Examples of grave negligence where people have lost their license are cases of reaction to a wrong transfusion, if you've given the wrong blood type for example, and didn't double-check.
Or situations where you've made a decision to deviate from common or recommended standards without documenting a good reason.
That said, 24h shifts are horrible and should be forbidden. The fear of making a mistake and harming someone because you're tired is always there. Makes you kind of OCD at work.
"Could still help other people" is no reason to let someone continue. That would be acceptable in disasters, very remote areas or similar situations, but not generally. People normally aren't irreplaceable.
I think or hope that my own conscience and sense of responsibility would make me pay attention and work carefully, because I couldn't live with myself if my mistake killed or harmed another person.
But that might not always be motivation enough, and not for everyone. I mean, if people were always careful and responsible, there wouldn't be criminals, right?
Some people are selfish and greedy and inconsiderate and can only be kept in check with fear of consequences. So, the knowledge that your position, importance, power, charisma and wealth don't protect you from these consequences is important, I think.
I'm not so sure if it really hurts rich people less or more to lose money. I'd say "come on, a few millions means nothing to him", but if that were the case, he wouldn't have gotten that rich in the first place. Still, it feels like people buying themselves out of consequences.
Besides, in case of the kind of crimes Epstein has committed, prison is not only about punishment. It's also about protecting others from such predators. Or do you think that paying a large sum of money would have turned him or others like him into another person who would never, ever do it again?
Edit: Realized now that @jjstraka34 has already brought up the last point.
Vengeance does not need to be part of this.
I think none of these three purposes is served adequately if rich people only need to pay money and have to suffer being observed.
Deterrence: to some rich people losing money is the ultimate punishment. Others see it as means to an end, and would see imprisonment as worse. So I think there should both be a fine (proportion to wealth/income) and prison time (independently of wealth).
Protection of the public: works much better in jail, than with simple being under observation. Also constant surveillance would necessarily include at times everyone that has to interact with the criminal, which would impinge on their rights.
Rehabilitation: prison time gives time for reflection and access to psychological help. Well, at least it should - the US criminal justice system is obviously not good at this.
As for willingly surrender wealth I do not see how this is possible. If you know where the money is, then the state can usually get access to it. If it is hidden, how should the justice system know how much to ask for? I don't see how "fine only" will result in more money than "fine and prison time".
Not necessarily 'hidden' but inaccessible. Swiss banks and such is what I was referring to. Since my idea is obviously as popular as a lead balloon I'm going to let this go...
@Balrog99 for what it's worth I have sympathy with your position, although I don't agree with it. The idea of the greater good was included in most legal systems in the past, even for major crimes such as murder - think of the concept of 'weregild'. There were also a range of different legal systems depending on social position (so only nobles could judge nobles, the clergy had separate courts etc). Over time though systems have generally moved towards the philosophy that everyone should be treated equally, rather than having separate laws for the rich (that philosophy of course does not always get carried through in practice).
There are still lots of hold-overs even in the current system though of that older legal concept. For instance it's not unusual in cases of severe company malpractice for the company to pay a huge fine in order to avoid any of the directors being prosecuted personally. There are separate courts for service personnel (though that is also under attack) and of course we've discussed extensively the fact that the US president is currently immune from prosecution
While the pragmatic position is a perfectly reasonable argument, I'm not personally comfortable with the idea that a person can buy themselves out of trouble - it seems to me that in principle everyone should be subject to the same law. However, that doesn't mean that the law couldn't be changed in order to get closer to the results you want. As @semiticgod said it's already possible under the law to have fines in addition to other punishments, rather than only one or the other. There have also been experiments in the past to scale fines according to wealth rather than having fixed figures and that's something I think would be worth taking a closer look at.
Wanting to remove predators from having access to victims isn't a vengeance thing. It's a "I don't want to facilitate danger" thing. Letting him buy his way out of prison is not a just solution.
I also can't speak for anyone else but I didn't say anything about what to do with his wealth. Given that I consider that much wealth to in and of itself be exploitation and unethical, I don't think anyone should be worth half a billion dollars or more, and I don't believe anyone has ever done work that would rightfully earn that amount of money.
If I came uo with an invention that was so cool that everybody in the world wanted one and I made $0.25 profit on each unit, I'd be a billionaire...
Just because someone happens to own a spectacular amount of wealth doesn't mean they caused it to come into existence. Remove any of them from history, and the billionaires and the empires they control will still exist, just with different names.
I think we have a habit of blindly worshiping the rich and powerful as if they were superior to everyone else. I have met them and I am not convinced they are.
Today you cannot technically buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one, wink. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.
In Zuckerberg's case, he created a product inferior to his already established competitor and still came out ahead. Myspace gave us music and customizable pages and Facebook gives us...what? Pokes?
Dude was a hedge fund manager and it's pretty opaque about what they actually did. But even at best, that's just moving capital around. The man didn't invent anything.
In fact, the case that he was raping children systematically, seems to indicate he was anything but a productive member of society. To me, it requires a stunning naivete to believe someone is "productive" merely because they have a large bank account.
There's a reason marketing is considered the most important part of a business.
Personally I loathe marketing. I much prefer accounting, which is about as far as one can get from marketing. I guess HR is farther from accounting than marketing.
Anyways, yeah. Marketing. To quote one of my favorite sci-fi authors: "The Commonwealth was rife with foodstuffs no one would touch if he or she had an inkling of their origins. That was what advertising existed for: to make the impractical and unappetizing irresistible." -Flinx, Flinx in Flux, Alan Dean Foster
I appreciate market analysis as I appreciate any analysis, but I dislike the promotion of products with a surcharge because of brand, not because of the fitness of the product.
How do you inform the public abput this "thing"?
How does the public benefit from having this "thing"?
"thing can be anything from an idea, to a product, to awareness, to a service" Everything needs to be communicated and that is where marketing and media come in.
What many people have an issue with the is the persuasion that marketing uses to sell. People do not want to be influenced. They want to be independent in their thought and having something corrupt that independence frightens them. I can go on a full wall of text about this, but it's late/early and I don't want to bore people with my rambling.
Pretty much, which is the point. Just that instead of buying lawyers and judges to close the case, one can pay off the debt to society legally, without feeding the corruption system. May depend on the country, but many crimes have multiple ways of punishment for committing, monetary being quite common. This is merely extending the list, and actually in line with the trend to abolish cruel forms of punishment. Like, most countries don't sentence to death anymore or cut hands off for thievery.
Who said a million.
I could agree with that if I honestly thought that companies used marketing and advertisement to inform the public about the true usefulness of their products. Preferably based on research, not fake scientific studies like giving a skin lotion to 10 women and asking them after a week if they think their skin is smoother, and then saying "this product smoothes the skin in 90% of its users after only one week!".
You can't communicate with others without influencing or being influenced. It's just not possible. Unfortunately, most marketing is about making you buy the product no matter what, and not informing you objectively of the advantages. It would be nice if marketing were based on actual information, not psychology.
I'm okay with people making money if they provide employment and produce something useful, no matter how you want to define "useful". At least something that you can grasp somehow, realize it's actually there. You can dispute whether Facebook is more useful than, let's say, water purification devices, but at least it's useful to a lot of people and not only to the owner.
Making tons of money with strategies like speculative investment stuff, which is basically nothing else than gambling and moving capital, has no value or meaning other than to increase the wealth of a person. They don't generate employment or products or services, except of course the need for more investment bankers or hedge fund managers or whatever. I doubt a society as a whole profits very much from those people. Especially since they usually don't even pay a fair amount of taxes.
Edited some typos. Sorry.
The very system you are advocating is classic corruption. THey are called bribes.
Bribes are what the rich are doing now to avoid prison time. That does 'not' go into the system. That goes directly into some shady individual's pocket. What @Ardanis and I are talking about is painful, up-front, fully disclosed fines that would be used for the public good. But sure, whatever, leave it the way it is. Your way is so much better...
Considering this argument originated about the Epstein case, yes, the way it is absolutely trumps your proposal. Epstein was almost certainly going to be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
The system is definitely stacked in their favor. Even from prison many rich people (including even drug-lords) are still able to influence their followers, make business decisions, bribe guards into special favors, and probably crap I can't even think of. That's why I think a major hit to their finances would be a far better deterrent. The reason suicide was Epstein's (apparent) decision is likely more because child-molesters are the lowest form of life in prison and treated as such. Even so, there's no absolute guarantee that some high-priced lawyer couldn't have gotten him into some cushy low-security federal prison. Maybe it would have been worth it to him to pay a few-hundred million dollars for probation with zero-tolerance for repeat offenses. I would even say people like this should have to plea 'guilty' as well, no buying your out of a felony conviction that way either.
What the Hell is McConnell thinking in delaying putting a bill on the Oval Office desk as soon as possible? The NRA can't be that powerful can they? Republicans (or at least McConnell in particular) are really willing to throw away all the good-will this would result in? Does the NRA have McConnell's granddaughter in their dungeon or something? I don't get it....