Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

Considering he used absolutely no violence against anyone, I don't think he deserves any violence to be used against him (including, obviously, imprisonment).

View on HN

Is there a way to enforce laws that doesn't require violence or the threat of it?

No, which is why I don't like laws against non-violent actions.

Fraud, blackmail, libel, DUI (without injuring anyone) are all non-violent crimes and you'd rather they be legalized?

There is no point probing his silly poorly thought out world view.

Fraud and blackmail insure people obviously.

Libel, I'm not sure, but I'm American so we have no such laws anyways.

DUI is interesting: its like randomly shooting into a crowd of people and just missing to hit someone.

We do have laws against libel, you just don't know about them.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

Yes, but its only civil law, not criminal. I had the impression that we were just talking about criminal law.

Why would you have that impression? The threat of violence is also the means of enforcement for civil law. If you don't comply with judicial orders, eventually the sheriff will come by and force you to.

IANAL but that is not true; they can only seize your property, and even then civil bankruptcy is still an option. You do not go to jail for violating a civil judgement.

Seizing property is violent taking.

That is an ideological libertarian viewpoint, where even taxes are considered as violence. Not useful.

There is a difference between going to jail for 4 years and just going bankrupt. The first you lose your freedom, the second you just lose your property but can at least keep living. Many people would never recover mentally from being incarcerated for 4 years, but many can recover from bankruptcy.

You're right, I only gave a half-answer. We do have lws against sedition [1]. Having grown up around UK common law, I carelessly linked to libel instead - it's called 'seditious libel' over there. But that's probably not what you meant when you referred to libel. I'm sorry for the confusion and for not reading the link I posted more carefully.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385?quicktabs_8=1...

It's called "defamation" here in the USA.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-s...

I would rather those rules not be enforced by a government.

Bernie Madoff would have loved to have you on his jury.

I don't much like him, and from my politics (generally left) I guess I'm supposed to be angry about the underprosecution of white-collar crime, but I don't see a great case for actually imprisoning him. I mostly take a view that imprisonment is a last resort to physically restrain people from harming society further, with alternatives being preferable, if at all possible. Is imprisonment really the last option available in Madoff's case? I think just banning him from investment-related jobs and imposing some kind of probationary oversight would be sufficient to keep him from reoffending. In addition, of course, to confiscating his wealth, plus perhaps taking some portion of his future earnings as restitution.

    >"I think just banning him from investment-related jobs and imposing some kind of probationary oversight would be sufficient to keep him from reoffending."

Would the ban guarantee he could never re-offend, or would it just limit the scale of any potential future fraud?

Given the level of his past fraud and allegations of possible fraud going back as far as the 70s imprisonment doesn't sound inappropriate to me.

"confiscating his wealth"

The problem is with the wealth he probably has hidden somewhere. If not in prison, he would still be living a very rich life. He wouldn't need any job.

Madoff is the perfect example. Sure, on the surface his actions weren't violent, but I'd be surprised if someone didn't die as a result of his $60 billion theft. I'm not even talking about the suicides that probably occurred. Instead, imagine all of the people who lost everything and could no longer afford to take care of themselves properly.

And the charities he stole from.

Why single out violence? That favors the cunning over the physically strong.

Yes. Garnish his wages.

Consider something like $10,000 over 10 years. Enough to notice, but it's not going to make a software engineer homeless. (I think that's too much in this case, but consider non-violent criminals in general.)

And in this manner, he could still keep a job and perhaps add value to society. Sending him to prison is a net loss for everyone, because of the cost to society of keeping him locked in a cage, and the difficulty of him finding employment following the prison sentence, in which case he might continue to drain on society. Prisons should serve to prevent violent people from inflicting harm upon others, and not strictly as a method of punishment.

To be fair, this is a threat of violence against his employer if they do not comply. Also, another way to look at it is forced taking, which is also violent.

Yes, but most employers err on the side of caution, reducing the likelihood of violence. There will never be no violence until every individual on Earth always acts in society's best interest without any persuasion whatsoever. I think we can all agree that's not going to happen ever, so in order to maintain order, we do need to threaten violence in the right circumstances.

Agreed. Your rationale and mine align, but are in opposition to the person I originally responded to, who suggested a blanked prohibition on violent punishment against non-violent offenders.

1000 bucks a year as punishment? Why not just write him a traffic ticket. That's not nearly enough.

Do you get 10 traffic tickets a year? How much should we fine a 12 year old script kiddie if they were to do the same thing? AT&T is to blame here for not taking even the smallest measure to secure their data.

A minor? You can't fine a minor because they don't have income. You could fine their parents. I would suggest juvenile hall, maybe 1 week.

If we were to fine weev, for a crime that was otherwise punishable with jail, it should be done as a percentage of his income. 15% would be hurtful enough, I think.

Tons of americans are already swimming in well-intentioned debt that's far worse than the "punishment" suggested above.

To be honest, if he'd done these actions to his victim's face, I think violence could have modified his behaviour quite effectively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com