undefined | Better HN

0 pointsclarky0712y ago0 comments

you clearly don't know me at all. I have a cousin that has stolen large sums of money from and threatened bodily harm to my grandma along with several other convictions that i'd like to stay in prison for a long time. I've got an uncle that I have similar feelings for.

Also, you should re-read what I wrote. I also said that perhaps these don't deserve life, but "a long time" does seem reasonable.

Finally, how is securities fraud worse than breaking and entering? How is securities fraud worse than "inadvertently killing someone?" Really? Yes yes, I know we hate the 1%. Terrible rich people. Insider trading is not worse than breaking and entering or killing someone. Come on now.

0 comments

meric12y ago

Breaking and entering: $1000's of damage, per instance. Insider trading: $100,000's of damage, per instance. Enforcement level of insider trading is also low, so a person can commit many more times the crime of insider trading before they're caught.

clarky07OP12y ago

Breaking and entering - very traumatic to someone.

insider trading - traumatic to no one. I'm not sure what these "damages" you speak of are. Someone wanted to buy or sell stock, and an insider bought or sold it. Sure, they have more information, but someone always has more or different information. carl icahn and warren buffett have more information than me about a lot of things. yet we trade on the same market everyday. many economists argue that it should be legal, and it is a victimless crime. "Other critics argue that insider trading is a victimless act: a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to trade property which the seller rightfully owns, with no prior contract (according to this view) having been made between the parties to refrain from trading if there is asymmetric information. The Atlantic has described the process as "arguably the closest thing that modern finance has to a victimless crime""[1]

i can't imagine how someone can suggest that insider trading is a worse crime than breaking and entering.

also, FWIW, if you want to get mad at insider trading, don't get mad at martha stewart. She went to jail for it. Get mad at the fact that it is completely legal for politicians to insider trade. I mean WTF. They get non-public important information on a regular basis and for whatever bizarre reason we decided that they can trade on it but nobody else can. WTF?

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_l...

collyw12y ago

"insider trading -traumatic to no one."

When the whole Enron thing went down a few years back, my flatmate at the time lost her job, as an accountant in the UK as a result of that.

1 more reply

meric12y ago

Just because the damage is spread out to thousands of people doesn't mean it's a victimless crime. I'm trade stocks and I'm a victim, too. The damage to the share market's reputation may scare off some people, they will lose an avenue for investing their savings, as a result suffer a reduction on the return of their capital over their lifetime, with a significant chance of relying on the society for their retirement, because they were put off from investing, causing an increased drain on society's resources as well as a permanent reduction in their self esteem due to their lack of self reliance. In terms of damage to people's emotional state I still think insider trading is more insidious than breaking and entering. My home has been broken and entered into twice but I'm still more angry when insiders traded off private information in a company I invested in.

avenger12312y ago

You are right, I do not know you.

Anyways, let's agree to disagree on this.

clarky07OP12y ago

ah quick edit there. I'll leave my response below. We can agree to disagree, but let me make a few more points first :-) I'll be civil I promise.

He didn't get life for stealing the truck. he got life for stealing the truck in addition to the 2 other convictions. It's also not "any severity," but felony level severity. You can argue that the line in the sand has been drawn in the wrong place, but the line in the sand is for bad offenses. Stealing a chocolate bar is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor (pretty much everywhere as far as I can tell. Generally speaking, shoplifting is not a felony until is it several hundred dollars worth, usually $500).[1]

You can argue that the "felony" label is too broadly applied to things that aren't "that bad." You can argue that life is too harsh of a punishment. Those are reasonable arguments. But in general, felonies are "severe" and not comparable to speeding tickets or chocolate bars.

>Realistically if the first two strikes were horrendous the person would already be put in jail for life and a long time. There would be no opportunity for a third strike. By your logic, the courts got it wrong the first two times and now they are getting it right with the life sentence.

I'd say it's more along the lines of we'll give you a couple chances, but only a couple. 1, go to jail for awhile and think about what you've done. 2, I told you not to do that and you kept doing it anyways think about it longer. 3. Dude, seriously. We warned you, and now we've had enough.

Some felonies on their own are in fact worthy of life. Murder someone and you generally get life. They idea behind 3 strikes is that on their own maybe they aren't worth that long of a sentence, but they are bad and we gave you several chances.

>Also, I am sorry, personally for me 20-30 years in jail is as good as life.

perhaps. how about 10-15? I have no idea what the "right" amount of time for any crime is. All I'm suggesting is that it isn't that unreasonable to have that time scale for people who repeatedly prove that they aren't being productive members of society.

[1] - http://examples.yourdictionary.com/what-are-examples-of-felo...

hmsimha12y ago

You may find it interesting that there's a guy in California who died in prison under the three strikes law for attempting to steal a candy bar, because a petty theft can be prosecuted as a felony for people with previous thefts. Another guy, who was never arrested for theft or violence of any kind, has been in prison for 20 years and will likely remain there for life after getting arrested with 13 sheets of LSD. The cost of keeping someone in prison can be over $100,000 a year. Regardless of the seriousness of the crimes committed by the people presented in the ACLU link (and I don't disagree with you that they are not trivial), the fact remains that we have the most overzealous criminal system in the world.

clarky07OP12y ago

also, fwiw I probably agree with you that the line on felony should be moved in some cases, specifically related to drug offenses. I do think that many of the things in the article should very much be felonies. specifically the breaking and entering and the "inadvertent killing" seem reasonable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse