@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.
"Almost" certainly is absolutely right in our criminal justice system. Do you really think O.J. Simpson was innocent?
@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.
"Almost" certainly is absolutely right in our criminal justice system. Do you really think O.J. Simpson was innocent?
I think Simpson was a rightful non-conviction, because during the process of the trial, it was proven (imo of course) that the LAPD conducted a corrupt investigation. That's enough to have reasonable doubt. Moreover, rewarding a law enforcement agency with a conviction would have been a terrible precedent.
I think it's almost certain Simpson was guilty. But it's better to err on the side of too few convictions as opposed to too many.
The evidence against Epstein was significantly greater, by the way. The cases aren't even comparable, except that they're high-profile. He had co-conspirators. His victims are alive.
The other problem with high-wealth individuals is the problem authorities have with Epstein's "madam", his long-time friend Ghislaine Noelle Maxwell. Her whereabouts are, at this time, not public knowledge; given that she has dual citizenship in England and France, as well as access to lots of money, she could--literally--be anywhere in the world at this point.
Although we have motive--keeping Epstein from talking, means--a lot of people associated with him have money and/or political power, and opportunity--he was in a known location with sloppy guards who were overworked, the idea that someone ordered a hit on him is still a little far-fetched. Unlike the previous instance where he faced criminal charges and got a very nice deal, this time he was in a no-way-out situation in the jail containing people El Chapo and the first World Trade Center bomber (I think they have him housed there)--he knew his life was over so he probably decided to spare himself the continued humiliation. I do have to agree--nothing hurts a rich person more than losing that money or the freedom to spend it.
That last bit is probably why even Democrats don't try to go for Progressive-style tax increases--most Members of Congress are millionaires or one-percenters so they would be raising taxes on themselves.
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....
Mitch McConnell has no reason to bring a gun control bill to the Oval Office, especially if Trump is actually considering supporting it. McConnell is a GOP partisan and crossing the NRA in any way is simply against his goals. Imagine if Obama said he'd be open to banning gay marriage--would Nancy Pelosi actually help make it happen, just because they're in the same party? Trump's support or opposition isn't necessarily relevant to Mitch McConnell. McConnell's loyalties lie with himself and his party; not Trump himself.
I'm guessing that McConnell knows that Trump doesn't have the enthusiasm or the follow-through to actually press for gun control, which means McConnell can just wait until Trump's attention drifts elsewhere.
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
That last bit is probably why even Democrats don't try to go for Progressive-style tax increases--most Members of Congress are millionaires or one-percenters so they would be raising taxes on themselves.
Is there a certain meaning behind the capital "P" in "Progressive?" Democrats do support progressive tax increases with a small "p," although these days that's mostly about undoing the tax cuts of the Bush administration and now the Trump administration.
It gets a little odd. Progressive, with a capital letter, stands for that school of political though which comprises ideas such as "basic minimum income", "universal health care for all", "free college tuition", etc. With a lower-case letter, progressive, that is usually just something which would otherwise be called forward-thinking or "set to a sliding scale"--the more you make the more you pay in taxes, for example. I meant it with a capital "P"--significantly higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
Incidentally, do you--the generic "you", meaning "all of you", not you specifically--know why they call them "upper case" and "lower case" letters? Back when people had to manually set up the letters for running a printing press, "capital" letters were physically located in the "upper case" while "small" letter were in the "lower case".
I think it's important to understand the multi-factor reasons for the justice system being what it is. For one, trials are a place to put on the public record the actual investigation, the actual evidence of the case. The ability to withhold all this stuff and simply pay a fine, even a large fine, that's going to abrogate a specific concern of the justice system. And that's to have a definitive record of what actually happened. It's this ostensibly public record that lends legitimacy to the entire process, and even governance itself.
A huge fine might have satisfied some of you here, but I doubt it would have satisfied the victims and their families. Imagine being a father of one these girls and Epstein can simply pay 20% of his net worth and live the rest of his life freely. So in these kinds of extreme cases, extreme sentences serve to prevent vigilante justice -- something that can become an awful cycle. It's not always perfect, but that's true of every system. A system of fines and liberty doesn't accomplish that.
Treating rich convicts differently in de jure manner is an outright violation of the 14th amendment. There are even more concerns I'm sure, that I haven't even touched on, such as the need to have harsh leverage to break apart criminal conspiracies.
It's tempting to think you can reinvent the wheel in regards to these complex and seemingly flawed systems. But, I think alot of folks here are revealing a bit of a naive understanding of why the justice system evolved into what it is today.
I think it's important to understand the multi-factor reasons for the justice system being what it is. For one, trials are a place to put on the public record the actual investigation, the actual evidence of the case. The ability to withhold all this stuff and simply pay a fine, even a large fine, that's going to abrogate a specific concern of the justice system. And that's to have a definitive record of what actually happened. It's this ostensibly public record that lends legitimacy to the entire process, and even governance itself.
A huge fine might have satisfied some of you here, but I doubt it would have satisfied the victims and their families. Imagine being a father of one these girls and Epstein can simply pay 20% of his net worth and live the rest of his life freely. So in these kinds of extreme cases, extreme sentences serve to prevent vigilante justice -- something that can become an awful cycle. It's not always perfect, but that's true of every system. A system of fines and liberty doesn't accomplish that.
Treating rich convicts differently in de jure manner is an outright violation of the 14th amendment. There are even more concerns I'm sure, that I haven't even touched on, such as the need to have harsh leverage to break apart criminal conspiracies.
It's tempting to think you can reinvent the wheel in regards to these complex and seemingly flawed systems. But, I think alot of folks here are revealing a bit of a naive understanding of why the justice system evolved into what it is today.
Live the rest of his life without a significant percentage of his wealth/influence and if he/she does it again they rot in prison until dead? Why wouldn't a victim be for that? That's far less than these comparable assholes pay now. Let's throw the book at him/her (mostly him by a far degree) and let his fancy lawyers get him off easy/early. That's somehow superior?
I'll try again to explain my reasoning. Get raped by a homeless guy. Homeless guy gets 40 years in prison. Net result, public -$1 million or more. Rich dude rapes somebody, rape them back where it hurts. Net result, public +$ millions. How can nobody else other than @Ardanis see the difference? I just seriously don't get it from a pragmatic point of view. How is helping society less important than vengeance? Vengeance for the victims would be that the asshole is on probation for life, he has to help people he likely diadains and he loses what is most important in his life.
God I wanted to give up on this but y'all won't let me!
I understand the position you are trying to take--the punishment should be adjusted based on the guilty party's financial status. Unfortunately, either we have "one size fits all" justice which applies to everyone or we have strata and the justice you receive is based on your income. Although it is true that having a lot of money can buy better justice than a poor person can receive, our laws do not define the punishment of "the guilty party is a millionaire so we can seize all their money".
Now...this whole idea of "blue collar" prisons where life is hard and you might get shanked for looking at someone the wrong way versus "white collar" prisons where "life is hard" means "the cable TV needs repair" or "the air-conditioned workout room is closed because the central unit has leak" needs to change. A felony is a felony, whether that is "homicide" or "bank robbery" or "securities fraud"--put them all in the same tank.
I think where you might be getting off track is trying to equate "justice" with "vengeance". Justice is "the law says the punishment for x is y" while vengeance is "your victims get to decide what happens to you" and that might lead back to "cruel an unusual" punishments.
I understand the position you are trying to take--the punishment should be adjusted based on the guilty party's financial status. Unfortunately, either we have "one size fits all" justice which applies to everyone or we have strata and the justice you receive is based on your income. Although it is true that having a lot of money can buy better justice than a poor person can receive, our laws do not define the punishment of "the guilty party is a millionaire so we can seize all their money".
Now...this whole idea of "blue collar" prisons where life is hard and you might get shanked for looking at someone the wrong way versus "white collar" prisons where "life is hard" means "the cable TV needs repair" or "the air-conditioned workout room is closed because the central unit has leak" needs to change. A felony is a felony, whether that is "homicide" or "bank robbery" or "securities fraud"--put them all in the same tank.
I think where you might be getting off track is trying to equate "justice" with "vengeance". Justice is "the law says the punishment for x is y" while vengeance is "your victims get to decide what happens to you" and that might lead back to "cruel an unusual" punishments.
Perhaps, but let the convicted and the victims decide. It would definitely require a re-write of our current system but I really think it could work. How much is 40 years of somebody's life worth? That likely depends on the person. This idea of 'fairness' is frankly ludicrous. Get rid of the frickin' white-collar prisons altogether and see what these rich assholes woukd be willing to give up to stay out of everybody-else's prisons! I guarantee it'll be more of a 'deterrent' than we have now...
@Balrog99 "I'll try again to explain my reasoning. Get raped by a homeless guy. Homeless guy gets 40 years in prison. Net result, public -$1 million or more. Rich dude rapes somebody, rape them back where it hurts. Net result, public +$ millions."
So, if a homeless guy can rape somebody. How does taking a rich person's money prevent them from raping again? How are the victims (present and future) protected in your scenario?
@Balrog99: The government doesn't need the rich guy's permission to levy an additional fine--they don't need to say "I'll let you go if you give us a million dollars"; they can just say "This sentence carries an additional fine based on your net worth."
I will pose an alternative to your policy: in addition to the standard punishment, the penalty for sexual assault is a fine equal to a scaling percentage of the offender's net worth.
In my policy, the rich offender contributes money to society and receives a direct punishment. Like your policy, it results in a monetary contribution to the state. Unlike your policy, it also deters rich folks who deem the crime to be "worth" the fine.
@Balrog99: The government doesn't need the rich guy's permission to levy an additional fine--they don't need to say "I'll let you go if you give us a million dollars"; they can just say "This sentence carries an additional fine based on your net worth."
I will pose an alternative to your policy: in addition to the standard punishment, the penalty for sexual assault is a fine equal to a scaling percentage of the offender's net worth.
In my policy, the rich offender contributes money to society and receives a direct punishment. Like your policy, it results in a monetary contribution to the state. Unlike your policy, it also deters rich folks who deem the crime to be "worth" the fine.
I wouldn't mind that either but the ACLU would probably consider that "cruel and unusual". You can find a prostitute on 8-Mile Road in Detroit for FAR less than the $millions it would cost you to rape somebody if my ideas were implemented. I'm not talking about 'slap on the wrist' fines!
@Balrog99 "I'll try again to explain my reasoning. Get raped by a homeless guy. Homeless guy gets 40 years in prison. Net result, public -$1 million or more. Rich dude rapes somebody, rape them back where it hurts. Net result, public +$ millions."
So, if a homeless guy can rape somebody. How does taking a rich person's money prevent them from raping again? How are the victims (present and future) protected in your scenario?
They plea 'guilty' get probation for life and prison with no plea deals if they do it again. One strike, that's it. A jury would very likely take into account the dude's past if it came up in court again. If the asshole even gets close to shady again they're likely to be blackmailed into losing even more of their wealth in that case. I'm specifically talking about sexual crimes here, not murder. If the victim(s) dont agree beforehand let the asshole rot. If I were a victim and I had the choice between vengeance or helping a Hell of a lot of people, I'd at least think about it. Revenge isn't as satisfying as it looks like in the movies. It doesn't change anything. Helping people does change things...
Edit: I sort of mis-spoke. Im not 'only' talking about sexual crimes. Epstein has kind of clouded my judgement. I mean any crime against the powerless not involving murder. Financial crimes where you're stealing from the less fortunate are equally bad in my opinion. Make that sting just as much!
@ThacoBell
Also a homeless person has nothing to lose other than his/her freedom. If you let them go free the chance of them doing it again IS actually higher. Just saying. Life isn't fair...
I heard on the news today that Epstein's victims' lawyers are pleading with his lawyer(s) 'not' to transfer his money and/or otherwise hide his funds from his victims. They're appealing to their 'sense of humanity'. Does anybody here have any illusions about Epstein's lawyer(s)' 'sense of humanity'?
I heard on the news today that Epstein's victims' lawyers are pleading with his lawyer(s) 'not' to transfer his money and/or otherwise hide his funds from his victims. They're appealing to their 'sense of humanity'. Does anybody here have any illusions about Epstein's lawyer(s)' 'sense of humanity'?
The real question is when the woman who was clearly his partner in all this (which is not really the correct term, as it seems by all accounts she was essentially a pimp) Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be hauled in. The problem seems to be that she has essentially disappeared, or is at least living abroad. Since I highly doubt she is going to fly back to the US at this point, she will probably have to be extradited.
I heard on the news today that Epstein's victims' lawyers are pleading with his lawyer(s) 'not' to transfer his money and/or otherwise hide his funds from his victims. They're appealing to their 'sense of humanity'. Does anybody here have any illusions about Epstein's lawyer(s)' 'sense of humanity'?
The real question is when the woman who was clearly his partner in all this (which is not really the correct term, as it seems by all accounts she was essentially a pimp) Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be hauled in. The problem seems to be that she has essentially disappeared, or is at least living abroad. Since I highly doubt she is going to fly back to the US at this point, she will probably have to be extradited.
The UK is her likely current residence so it might have to do with Royal Family connections whether or not we can get her extradited. Don't get me started on faux royalty...
Maxwell deserves prison time. There's a difference between making a demand and supplying that demand, but when it comes to pimping out children, both of them are well beyond the borders of human ethics.
I'm not optimistic she'll be found, however. A wealthy woman can hide in lots of places, and she has already escaped. Tracking her down might take years, and she might never be caught at all.
Maxwell deserves prison time. There's a difference between making a demand and supplying that demand, but when it comes to pimping out children, both of them are well beyond the borders of human ethics.
I'm not optimistic she'll be found, however. A wealthy woman can hide in lots of places, and she has already escaped. Tracking her down might take years, and she might never be caught at all.
She can hide-in-plain-sight like a Shadowdancer in the UK. She has ties to royalty. If there was ever a real 'Get Out of Jail Free' card, that's the one...
Edit: And the 'difference' is razor thin in my opinion. She even supposedly took part in some of the sexual escapades from what I heard this morning. That makes her at least as bad as Epstein, if not even worse. She's the one who allegedly recruited AND groomed these young girls...
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
If that became the norm then the NRA would either have to waste their money on unelectable morons, or spend their money more wisely on more mainstream politicians. Just saying (and I usually agree with you @Mathsorcerer). The Republican Party should not be hand-cuffed by the NRA (or any other PAC) any more than the Democratic Party should.
Edit: What recourse do they have? Back a Democrat? I sincerely doubt it. Fuck them...
I heard on the news today that Epstein's victims' lawyers are pleading with his lawyer(s) 'not' to transfer his money and/or otherwise hide his funds from his victims. They're appealing to their 'sense of humanity'. Does anybody here have any illusions about Epstein's lawyer(s)' 'sense of humanity'?
I have no illusions about ANY lawyer's sense of humanity, after I took business law taught by a lawyer (and ALL sections were taught by various lawyers, so I guess it was a requirement to be taught by a lawyer).
Sure, they're human, but they're chasing after the almighty dollar like everyone else. If your case is a just case, but there's no money to be had in taking it up, good luck with that. As in like tens of thousands of dollars at least to perk up a lawyer's interest.
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I'll try again to explain my reasoning. Get raped by a homeless guy. Homeless guy gets 40 years in prison. Net result, public -$1 million or more. Rich dude rapes somebody, rape them back where it hurts. Net result, public +$ millions. How can nobody else other than @Ardanis see the difference? I just seriously don't get it from a pragmatic point of view. How is helping society less important than vengeance? Vengeance for the victims would be that the asshole is on probation for life, he has to help people he likely diadains and he loses what is most important in his life.
God I wanted to give up on this but y'all won't let me!
Usually, business criminals just steal money. I pretty much feel that they should not allowed to be above the law just because they have money.
This is my sentiments on the rich avoiding justice.
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
The NRA is falling apart these days.
NRA TV is gone.
Oliver North was fired or quit or something because he was not covering up former NRA Head Wayne LaPierre.
Today, another NRA board member retired, the fourth in the past couple of weeks. The NRA has been going through a tumultuous time, marked with reports of financial woes and lawsuits with their longtime money-partner, PR firm Ackerman McQueen.
Barr deported back to Russia before she could face justice though iirc.
Anyway, all this is a roundabout way of saying "thoughts and prayers NRA". If they go under, don't worry Republicans will work out another way to get cash from Russia and work against people's interests.
I'll try again to explain my reasoning. Get raped by a homeless guy. Homeless guy gets 40 years in prison. Net result, public -$1 million or more. Rich dude rapes somebody, rape them back where it hurts. Net result, public +$ millions. How can nobody else other than @Ardanis see the difference? I just seriously don't get it from a pragmatic point of view. How is helping society less important than vengeance? Vengeance for the victims would be that the asshole is on probation for life, he has to help people he likely diadains and he loses what is most important in his life.
God I wanted to give up on this but y'all won't let me!
I think others understand your point of view - they just don't agree with it. Is the reverse true?
Consider the following:
- as has been said several times, a fine can be levied in addition to prison time under the current system. The only potential difference your proposal has is the idea that a 'voluntary' fine could allow assets to be handed over that would not be accessible through legal means (swiss bank accounts etc). I'm dubious about how much difference that would actually make (such 'shielded' assets could be used in determining the amount of a fine anyway).
- you've said a number of times that a fine would hit rich people where it hurts. I don't believe that at all - I think it would hit them exactly where it doesn't hurt. In fact that is the basis of your argument - if paying money was really more painful than going to jail, then rich people would not in fact be willing to pay the 'voluntary' fines you're calling for ...
- on a moral level it seems clear to me that a system that, in principle, treats everyone equally is preferable to one that dispenses justice according to your pocket-book. I recognize that there are clear flaws in the way the system is being applied at the moment, but would suggest the better answer to that is to address the flaws. We've talked a lot in the past about the benefits of reducing the influence of money on politics - the same applies to justice.
- as @DinoDin noted, part of the reason for punishments is for victims to see justice has been done. If that is not seen to be the case, the credibility of the justice system will be undermined over time.
As I said before, I have some sympathy with your proposal on a pragmatic level, i.e. the idea that more good can be done by using a criminal's cash than by putting them in jail. However, that seems to me to be a pretty marginal improvement over what could be done anyway and comes nowhere near over-turning the downsides of your proposal.
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
What do you think that happens when you put someone who his family depends on his work in jail?
Comments
"Almost" certainly is absolutely right in our criminal justice system. Do you really think O.J. Simpson was innocent?
I think Simpson was a rightful non-conviction, because during the process of the trial, it was proven (imo of course) that the LAPD conducted a corrupt investigation. That's enough to have reasonable doubt. Moreover, rewarding a law enforcement agency with a conviction would have been a terrible precedent.
I think it's almost certain Simpson was guilty. But it's better to err on the side of too few convictions as opposed to too many.
The evidence against Epstein was significantly greater, by the way. The cases aren't even comparable, except that they're high-profile. He had co-conspirators. His victims are alive.
Although we have motive--keeping Epstein from talking, means--a lot of people associated with him have money and/or political power, and opportunity--he was in a known location with sloppy guards who were overworked, the idea that someone ordered a hit on him is still a little far-fetched. Unlike the previous instance where he faced criminal charges and got a very nice deal, this time he was in a no-way-out situation in the jail containing people El Chapo and the first World Trade Center bomber (I think they have him housed there)--he knew his life was over so he probably decided to spare himself the continued humiliation. I do have to agree--nothing hurts a rich person more than losing that money or the freedom to spend it.
That last bit is probably why even Democrats don't try to go for Progressive-style tax increases--most Members of Congress are millionaires or one-percenters so they would be raising taxes on themselves.
I'm guessing that McConnell knows that Trump doesn't have the enthusiasm or the follow-through to actually press for gun control, which means McConnell can just wait until Trump's attention drifts elsewhere.
Incidentally, do you--the generic "you", meaning "all of you", not you specifically--know why they call them "upper case" and "lower case" letters? Back when people had to manually set up the letters for running a printing press, "capital" letters were physically located in the "upper case" while "small" letter were in the "lower case".
A huge fine might have satisfied some of you here, but I doubt it would have satisfied the victims and their families. Imagine being a father of one these girls and Epstein can simply pay 20% of his net worth and live the rest of his life freely. So in these kinds of extreme cases, extreme sentences serve to prevent vigilante justice -- something that can become an awful cycle. It's not always perfect, but that's true of every system. A system of fines and liberty doesn't accomplish that.
Treating rich convicts differently in de jure manner is an outright violation of the 14th amendment. There are even more concerns I'm sure, that I haven't even touched on, such as the need to have harsh leverage to break apart criminal conspiracies.
It's tempting to think you can reinvent the wheel in regards to these complex and seemingly flawed systems. But, I think alot of folks here are revealing a bit of a naive understanding of why the justice system evolved into what it is today.
Live the rest of his life without a significant percentage of his wealth/influence and if he/she does it again they rot in prison until dead? Why wouldn't a victim be for that? That's far less than these comparable assholes pay now. Let's throw the book at him/her (mostly him by a far degree) and let his fancy lawyers get him off easy/early. That's somehow superior?
God I wanted to give up on this but y'all won't let me!
Now...this whole idea of "blue collar" prisons where life is hard and you might get shanked for looking at someone the wrong way versus "white collar" prisons where "life is hard" means "the cable TV needs repair" or "the air-conditioned workout room is closed because the central unit has leak" needs to change. A felony is a felony, whether that is "homicide" or "bank robbery" or "securities fraud"--put them all in the same tank.
I think where you might be getting off track is trying to equate "justice" with "vengeance". Justice is "the law says the punishment for x is y" while vengeance is "your victims get to decide what happens to you" and that might lead back to "cruel an unusual" punishments.
Perhaps, but let the convicted and the victims decide. It would definitely require a re-write of our current system but I really think it could work. How much is 40 years of somebody's life worth? That likely depends on the person. This idea of 'fairness' is frankly ludicrous. Get rid of the frickin' white-collar prisons altogether and see what these rich assholes woukd be willing to give up to stay out of everybody-else's prisons! I guarantee it'll be more of a 'deterrent' than we have now...
So, if a homeless guy can rape somebody. How does taking a rich person's money prevent them from raping again? How are the victims (present and future) protected in your scenario?
I will pose an alternative to your policy: in addition to the standard punishment, the penalty for sexual assault is a fine equal to a scaling percentage of the offender's net worth.
In my policy, the rich offender contributes money to society and receives a direct punishment. Like your policy, it results in a monetary contribution to the state. Unlike your policy, it also deters rich folks who deem the crime to be "worth" the fine.
I wouldn't mind that either but the ACLU would probably consider that "cruel and unusual". You can find a prostitute on 8-Mile Road in Detroit for FAR less than the $millions it would cost you to rape somebody if my ideas were implemented. I'm not talking about 'slap on the wrist' fines!
They plea 'guilty' get probation for life and prison with no plea deals if they do it again. One strike, that's it. A jury would very likely take into account the dude's past if it came up in court again. If the asshole even gets close to shady again they're likely to be blackmailed into losing even more of their wealth in that case. I'm specifically talking about sexual crimes here, not murder. If the victim(s) dont agree beforehand let the asshole rot. If I were a victim and I had the choice between vengeance or helping a Hell of a lot of people, I'd at least think about it. Revenge isn't as satisfying as it looks like in the movies. It doesn't change anything. Helping people does change things...
Edit: I sort of mis-spoke. Im not 'only' talking about sexual crimes. Epstein has kind of clouded my judgement. I mean any crime against the powerless not involving murder. Financial crimes where you're stealing from the less fortunate are equally bad in my opinion. Make that sting just as much!
Also a homeless person has nothing to lose other than his/her freedom. If you let them go free the chance of them doing it again IS actually higher. Just saying. Life isn't fair...
The real question is when the woman who was clearly his partner in all this (which is not really the correct term, as it seems by all accounts she was essentially a pimp) Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be hauled in. The problem seems to be that she has essentially disappeared, or is at least living abroad. Since I highly doubt she is going to fly back to the US at this point, she will probably have to be extradited.
The UK is her likely current residence so it might have to do with Royal Family connections whether or not we can get her extradited. Don't get me started on faux royalty...
I'm not optimistic she'll be found, however. A wealthy woman can hide in lots of places, and she has already escaped. Tracking her down might take years, and she might never be caught at all.
She can hide-in-plain-sight like a Shadowdancer in the UK. She has ties to royalty. If there was ever a real 'Get Out of Jail Free' card, that's the one...
Edit: And the 'difference' is razor thin in my opinion. She even supposedly took part in some of the sexual escapades from what I heard this morning. That makes her at least as bad as Epstein, if not even worse. She's the one who allegedly recruited AND groomed these young girls...
If that became the norm then the NRA would either have to waste their money on unelectable morons, or spend their money more wisely on more mainstream politicians. Just saying (and I usually agree with you @Mathsorcerer). The Republican Party should not be hand-cuffed by the NRA (or any other PAC) any more than the Democratic Party should.
Edit: What recourse do they have? Back a Democrat? I sincerely doubt it. Fuck them...
I have no illusions about ANY lawyer's sense of humanity, after I took business law taught by a lawyer (and ALL sections were taught by various lawyers, so I guess it was a requirement to be taught by a lawyer).
Sure, they're human, but they're chasing after the almighty dollar like everyone else. If your case is a just case, but there's no money to be had in taking it up, good luck with that. As in like tens of thousands of dollars at least to perk up a lawyer's interest.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
Usually, business criminals just steal money. I pretty much feel that they should not allowed to be above the law just because they have money.
This is my sentiments on the rich avoiding justice.
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
The NRA is falling apart these days.
NRA TV is gone.
Oliver North was fired or quit or something because he was not covering up former NRA Head Wayne LaPierre.
And today it's coming out that the NRA, a "non-profit", approved Wayne LaPierre's request to purchase a $6.5 million dollar mansion because he felt scared after kids were shot at Parkland -srsly.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nra-promised-6-5-million-to-buy-mansion-for-ceo-wayne-lapierre-document-shows-11565714149
Today, another NRA board member retired, the fourth in the past couple of weeks. The NRA has been going through a tumultuous time, marked with reports of financial woes and lawsuits with their longtime money-partner, PR firm Ackerman McQueen.
Between the mansion and other shenanigans they are being sued over abusing their tax exempt status.
https://www.newsweek.com/nra-carry-guard-lawsuit-new-york-insurance-dellaquila-1453832
Marina Butina was part of and pled guilty to a scheme to funnel millions from Russia to Republican Candidates through the NRA.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/maria-butina-guilty-plea/index.html
Barr deported back to Russia before she could face justice though iirc.
Anyway, all this is a roundabout way of saying "thoughts and prayers NRA". If they go under, don't worry Republicans will work out another way to get cash from Russia and work against people's interests.
I think others understand your point of view - they just don't agree with it. Is the reverse true?
Consider the following:
- as has been said several times, a fine can be levied in addition to prison time under the current system. The only potential difference your proposal has is the idea that a 'voluntary' fine could allow assets to be handed over that would not be accessible through legal means (swiss bank accounts etc). I'm dubious about how much difference that would actually make (such 'shielded' assets could be used in determining the amount of a fine anyway).
- you've said a number of times that a fine would hit rich people where it hurts. I don't believe that at all - I think it would hit them exactly where it doesn't hurt. In fact that is the basis of your argument - if paying money was really more painful than going to jail, then rich people would not in fact be willing to pay the 'voluntary' fines you're calling for ...
- on a moral level it seems clear to me that a system that, in principle, treats everyone equally is preferable to one that dispenses justice according to your pocket-book. I recognize that there are clear flaws in the way the system is being applied at the moment, but would suggest the better answer to that is to address the flaws. We've talked a lot in the past about the benefits of reducing the influence of money on politics - the same applies to justice.
- as @DinoDin noted, part of the reason for punishments is for victims to see justice has been done. If that is not seen to be the case, the credibility of the justice system will be undermined over time.
As I said before, I have some sympathy with your proposal on a pragmatic level, i.e. the idea that more good can be done by using a criminal's cash than by putting them in jail. However, that seems to me to be a pretty marginal improvement over what could be done anyway and comes nowhere near over-turning the downsides of your proposal.
What do you think that happens when you put someone who his family depends on his work in jail?