Dave Smith wrote:

>> So compounding the burden on the tax payers makes the situation *worse*
>> then, not better.
>
> I agree that when viewed only as a punishment it is more of a burden on
> the taxpayer. However, the deterrent effect is a benefit to the taxpayer.

I should post a link to my research paper on the deterrent value of
punishment. The basic idea is this: in order for prison to be a deterrent
the criminal must be completely rational *at the time* the crime is
committed. However, the criminal is *not* rational (for the most part) and
operates under both a limited understanding of future events (the "bounded
rationality model") and an unrealistically enhanced view of their own
success (called the "subjective expected utility model") when committing
the crime. These two factors *alone* show prison to *not* be a deterrent in
any real sense of the word since it does *not* deter the criminals.

Additionally, the low likelihood of being *caught*, let alone enough
evidence being collected to get an indictment, a conviction or of any time
being served in prison makes the claim of prison being a deterrent even
*less* supported by actual fact. "Criminals view punishment as a
probability and not a certainty" (from "Social Factors Cause Crimes", pg
20) is quite clearly a statement that shows the deterrence value of prison
to be so limited as to be practically worthless in reality.

I could go on, but I should spend more time on actually writing the research
paper rather than putting snippets of my sources here. <g>

>> > 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.
>
> Of course it doesn't come from tax money. It comes from the citizens of
> the country, and they are taxpayers. Ergo, it comes from the taxpayers.

*Everybody* is a tax payer, but not everybody is affected by illegal stock
dealings. Prison time for stock fraud punishes *everyone* while the stock
fraud only harms a *few*, and those few are now being punished *more* by
having to foot the bill for the jailtime served which will have no
*effect*.

>> > 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.
>
> On the contrary, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that jail
> time is not a deterrent.

How do I prove a negative? Give me an example, please. (hint: the onus is on
those who claim prison *is* a deterrent to show it is such)

> It is for me. I can think of lots of things that
> I would do
> (victimless crimes) if there were not penalties up to an including jail
> time.

So the only thing that keeps you civil is a fear of punishment? You must be
a delight to be around.

> I know a guy who used to speed all the time when we had photo
> radar. His company paid his fines for him and they didn't go on his
> driving record. He could well afford the penalty, so it wasn't a
> deterrent.

He faced no penalty, so he committed the crimes. How do you think such
proves me wrong, exactly? I've been saying that the threat of punishment
does *not* deter from committing crimes. You just explained a situation
where someone does *not* face any threat of punishment and he continues to
commit a crime. What's the point there?

>> > 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.
>
> And if he we nailed a second time and fined 90% of his worth he would be
> down to a paltry $3.7 million. That still isn't going to make it hard for
> him to put food on the table or send the kids to summer camp.

And who said it *had* to? But, you've now taken him from 30.7 BILLION to 3.7
MILLION (your math is wrong, since it would be 370 million) and are trying
to argue that we've not significantly affected his life because he has more
money than us? Is that *really* your point?

>> > 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.
>
> Yet a few months in jail, even a Club Fed type jail would leave a lasting
> impression on him.

So would a hefty fine, and that *without* further punishment of making the
taxpayers pay for the criminals punishment. And, of that "lasting
impression" what do you think will happen? That he will suddenly stop
committing crimes? Again, I'll point you to the recidivism statistics to
show that that doesn't happen either.

It all boils down to jail being nothing more than a punishment, pure and
simple. It's not a deterrent, since crime rates haven't dropped and the
prison population continues to grow. It's not rehabilitating since
recidivism rates are high. It's nothing more than punishment, pure and
simple. And, in the case of non-violent offenders, it's barbaric punishment
since the punishment does *not* fit the crime.

>> 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.
>
> That is because so many people get away with these types of crimes.

And your theoretical deterrency value of prison just went out the window.

> They
> realize that if the break the law there is a good chance that they will
> get away with it, and even if they do get caught the consequences are
> minor. So here we are now with a highly visible case where the courts have
> the opportunity to set an example and show that not only do people get
> caught, they pay a huge price for their crime.

You think throwing Martha Stewart in jail is going to make others stop
committing crime? Is she the first person to ever be convicted of such a
crime in such a high profile case? I think not, and yet the crime continues
to happen. Why? Because people *still* expect *they* won't make the same
mistakes and get caught. They aren't deterred by jail, they are instead
shown ways to avoid getting caught by not committing her mistakes. The
subjective expected utility model strikes again.

>> > 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.
>
> You might want to look up the definition of barbaric.

"[P]ossessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than
primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization" (from
Merriam Webster). Throwing everybody who commits a crime into a 6'x9' cell
for 23 hours a day is most definitely barbaric. Threat to others? Thrown in
a cell. Stole a wallet? Thrown in a cell. Stole investment money? Thrown in
a cell. Had an ounce of pot? Thrown in a cell. Had too many traffic
tickets? Thrown in a cell. That's only a single step above the more savage
act of cutting off the hand of a thief or the penis of an adulterer. It's
hardly sophisticated and doesn't do anything more than exact a measure of
punishment that is of little effect on the criminal.

--