[1eyedjack]

In the grand tradition of Bruce Forsyth's Play your cards right ...

[Cyberyeti]

Too harsh unless a load of other people subsequently get similar, if they do I'm OK with it.

[dave251164]

Sounds like everyone was at it, before him and after him. They are just making an example of him. The justice system seems to punish financial crimes very severely. He could have committed manslaughter and got a lot less!

[Cyberyeti]

dave251164, on 2015-August-03, 15:00, said:

Sounds like everyone was at it, before him and after him. They are just making an example of him. The justice system seems to punish financial crimes very severely. He could have committed manslaughter and got a lot less!

This has just been discussed on the radio, the argument was made that he essentially robbed a bank, and the sentence was similar.

[barmar]

dave251164, on 2015-August-03, 15:00, said:

The justice system seems to punish financial crimes very severely.

Does it? How many people are in prison as a result of causing the Great Recession?

One guy robbing a bank gets a harsh sentence. A collection of big companies robbing the entire economy get slaps on the wrist.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-August-05, 12:31, said:

Does it? How many people are in prison as a result of causing the Great Recession?

One guy robbing a bank gets a harsh sentence. A collection of big companies robbing the entire economy get slaps on the wrist.

If we're going to put the people responsible for causing the Great Recession in jail, we should start with everyone living who's ever been on the board of governors of the federal reserve system.

[kenberg]

I think that financial crimes are a case where deterrence through substantial (14 years, even if halved through good behavior is substantial) might actually work. Your corner street thug often can't think five days, or maybe five hours, ahead. So the only deterrence of a sentence is that when he is in jail he (probably) is not committing crimes. But someone like the person here discussed can actually think ahead and the threat of a long jail term might make an impression on him..

I have never been impressed by arguments that other people are doing the same thing. When they get caught and convicted give them the same sentence. You deal now with the convicted criminal that is in front of you.

So I voted "about right"

[StevenG]

I find it remarkable that important decisions are made using an index that is so easily manipulable.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-05, 12:41, said:

If we're going to put the people responsible for causing the Great Recession in jail, we should start with everyone living who's ever been on the board of governors of the federal reserve system.

There are some who deliberately damaged the system for their own gain and there are some who just did their job in an incompetent way. If we are talking criminal justice then it makes a difference.

Sending more bankers (or civil cervants, or politicians) in jail may have the benefit, apart from crime deterence, that the upper echolon starts thinking constructively about how to deal with fellons. Still, I would strongly be opposed to jailing people for incompetence.

[1eyedjack]

Robbing a bank normally involves some level of violence or menace, by professional career criminals.

I don't know enough about the details, but it would not surprise me if this individual thought that he was acting perfectly normally at the time.

Anyway, I think that they are just using the comparison as an excuse.

[gordontd]

dave251164, on 2015-August-03, 15:00, said:

The justice system seems to punish financial crimes very severely rarely.

FYP

[Al_U_Card]

gordontd, on 2015-August-06, 05:54, said:

FYP

Crimes against banks are severely punished. Crimes by banks, not so much, as that is what the transfer of wealth is all about.

[mikeh]

In Canada, people who are in a position of trust, with the ability to do great financial harm to others, are generally punished more severely than someone who, for example, breaks into a vacant home and steals items of great value.

The problem is that our financial system is built, to a large degree, on the assumption that those in positions of power will not abuse that power. Human nature being what it is, that assumption will often be found to be erroneous, so one of the means of reducing the number of lapses in honesty is to punish with relative severity. In the case of LIBOR manipulation, the degree of trust, the vulnerability, and the potential for significant harm to many people and organizations warranted a severe sentence, so I think this was about right.

The fact that it would seem likely that other abuses of equal or greater magnitude may go unpunished is absolutely not a reason to be lenient when punishing those who are convicted.

It is difficult to prosecute sophisticated financial crimes, because in some cases the investigators lack the financial sophistication to detect the crime, the access to gather the evidence, the ability to show that criminal intent was present (as opposed to negligence or incompetence), the political will to prosecute, or the confidence that a Judge or jury would be able to understand the issues sufficiently well as to not have reasonable doubt, or flat out confusion, or some combination of these and, I expect, factors I am not currently thinking about.

Since sophisticated criminals are more inclined than the average street thug to weigh costs and benefits, the most obvious factor the system can manipulate to offset the perceived low risk of conviction is the consequences that flow from conviction. Increasing the conviction rate would arguably be more effective, but would be far more difficult to put into practice.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-August-05, 17:29, said:

I think that financial crimes are a case where deterrence through substantial (14 years, even if halved through good behavior is substantial) might actually work. Your corner street thug often can't think five days, or maybe five hours, ahead. So the only deterrence of a sentence is that when he is in jail he (probably) is not committing crimes. But someone like the person here discussed can actually think ahead and the threat of a long jail term might make an impression on him..

I think most of them will still think "It won't happen to me." They're upper class, well-educated, (mostly) white men -- they don't usually get sent to jail, at worst they get hit with a big fine. That's why this particular sentence is in the news, it's a "man bites dog" story.

Especially if everyone else is doing it, the chance that you'll be the one they decide to "make an example of" is pretty low.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2015-August-05, 12:31, said:

Does it? How many people are in prison as a result of causing the Great Recession?

They still have to catch them, and prove that what they did was against the law.

My impression from the outside is that the people who prosecute financial crimes (federal regulators and the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, basically) would love love love to throw more people in the clink for that sort of thing, but the laws are tricky and their resources are thin.

[blackshoe]

"Kill them all. The Lord will know his own."