Dave Smith wrote:

>> Do you think putting them into jail causes *less* of a financial burden?
>> Jail incurs a *greater* burden on *everyone* since taxpayers are now
>> forced to pay a form of child-support to the state for prisoners.
>
> Their crimes also cost the tax payers a lot of money.

So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse*
then, not better.

> When people profit
> through illegal stock deals the money comes from the other shareholders,
> most of
> whom are taxpayers.

No, the money taken from stock deals does not come from tax dollars. What
gives you that impression? The money taken comes from the *investor
community* who *bought* stocks, not from tax payers.

> Knowing that they risk jail time will/should deter
> them from their illegal activities.

You might want to follow up on that assertion. Jail time is not a deterrant.
It never has been and it never will be.

>> That's because you're not looking at the situation from a realistic
>> perspective. No matter your income, if you lose 90% of it you life *will*
>> drastically change. Even Bill Gates's life would be completely different
>> if he lost 90% of his income.
>
> The last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $30.7 Billion. Fining him 90% of
> his worth would whittle him down to a mere $3.7 Billion. While I
> appreciate that it would have a significant effect on the guy, that still
> leaves him with more money than any of us can dream of.

And that's what I meant when I said "from a realistic perspective." That he
still has more money than us does *not* mean that taking away 90% of his
incoming (which is *not* the same as his net worth; in BG's case, his worth
is tied up in non-liquid assets) won't affect him dramatically.

> Sorry, but as big
> a financial hit as that it,
> it still leaves the guy filthy rich.

Who said that the fine *must* leave the destitute? It's a form of punishment
suitable to a type of crime.

> I would prefer to see him do time.

So?

>> > You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the
>> > money bak I'm off the hook?
>>
>> I've already said a few times that the penalty is not commensurate with
>> the amount you illegally gained, and it was obvious you understood that
>> by your statement above about losing a portion of income. Why do you now
>> attempt argumentum ad ridiculum with "giv[ing] some of the money
>> bak(sic)"? What makes you think you can keep *any* of it? What makes you
>> think that the fine to be paid for a non-violent crime is going to be any
>> *less* than the amount you stole?
>
> You keep forgetting the concept of general deterrence.

No, I'm forgetting nothing. I'm asserting that the threat of jail time is
*not* a deterrant and, in the case of non-violent crimes, is a *barbaric*
form of punishment.

> It may be too late
> for
> the person who gets caught, but it does keep other people in line. Fear
> of consequences keeps a lot of people in the straight and narrow.

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Fear of consequences only occurs
in those who first fear they *will* be caught. Most, if not all, criminals
feel they *won't* get caught, so your who assertion about prison time as a
deterrant is a fantasy.

>> Right. Jailing someone for non-violent crime is no less barbaric than
>> flogging them or putting them into stocks in public. It serves no
>> purpose, no net benefit.
>
> Jail is barbaric?

Yes.

> Screwing people out of their life savings IMO is
> barbaric.

No, it's not barbaric. It's illegal, immoral and unethical, but it's not
barbaric.

--