Hacker News Reader

Comment by 71a54xd | Hacker News Reader

If the sentence is under 30yrs I will fly to a major city to attend a large scale protest.

Poor people go to prison for decades for stealing chips from gas stations... crime is wrong, but what SBF did to millions deserves a sizable sentence.

View on HN

I sense a certain echo of Anatole France's famous observation here, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But more specifically I would think that going "to prison for decades for stealing chips" is the perverse outcome of mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws, which tough-on-crime politicians enacted to make their constituents feel like someone was "doing something" (making judges who take the actual facts of a given case mostly powerless). But SBF will of course be able to hire the best lawyers stolen billions can buy, and thus is likely to get off as lightly as a very rich person can. Just a guess, maybe he'll get decades, but I am not holding my breath.

The fact that he managed to use a $4M house for a $250M bail is telling about what's going to happen in this case

And the fact that he does not even own that $4M house. And the people who live in that house does not even own it completely either, but instead lease (or some other financial arrangement) the house, only as long as they are employed at the owner of that house.

I heard people speculating his parents may not own the house, but I have a hard time believing that would be agreeable to the court (unless perhaps Standford is one of the signatories that remains anonymous, and why would they be?). Has this been confirmed?

The only "news" source I found discussing this was also speculating, and was a right-wing political blog. Not a source I'm comfortable relying on (even if it had been a left-wing or centrist political blog). But I didn't look very hard; open to being corrected if someone has a good source on this.

This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless.

What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" figure comes? Why are you assigning some special meaning to it? It's pulled out of the ass of the very same judge who granted SBF bail.

Just saying "refuted" or "debunked" without actually refuting of debunking a claim makes it sound like you are trying to gaslight people. Would you care to provide these refutations that you speak of?

If you read the last line of my previous comment you will find a short-form refutation.

Here's a longer explanation by a former federal prosecutor, current criminal defence attorney https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...

Thanks for providing the actual refutation that you speak of. The refutation just reiterates the fact that he did not have to pay a $250M bond. Your refutation also mentions that the house bond isn't actually posted yet. Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman. Do you think SBF will have to pay 10% to someone based on $4M of the house value or $250M?

> Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman

Bail bondsmen basically do not exist in federal courts.

But sure, regular crooks generally don't end up in federal courts. I think that's probably where this confusion stems from.

I suspect part of the reason he will plead to a middling sentence is because those in power don't want money laundering and political donations thoroughly exposed in court.

This seems like a particularly twisted take. Poor people get excessively long sentences so SBF should too? What a messed up line of thinking.

A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included"

Divide the amount of money his customers lost by the average hourly wage, then double it (as a punitive measure) to get the minimum prison time. 100+ years seems like a reasonable sentence in this case.

Every dollar stolen/defrauded represents minutes of someone's life that they'll never get back.

> A healthy take would be "Hopefully everyone gets a reasonable sentence, SBF included"

How about "SBF getting an unreasonable sentence, hopefully, would be the catalyst of change towards every convicted criminal getting reasonable sentences"?

Accelerationism is also bad, yes. A rather nihilistic way of looking at things.

Book your flight pal the kid is gonna walk.

Before he was arrested, were you skeptical that he would be?

If SBF gets, say, 10 years (a similar sentence to Holmes), what will you say then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com