You SBF defenders have such a weird view of how the law works. If I embezzle money from my company and then bet it all on black in Vegas, intending to give it back if I win, your implication here is equivalent to saying I did commit a crime if the wheel comes up red, but I did not commit any crime if it comes up black.
Not a SBF defender, and at no point am I suggesting that a crime was not committed. I am saying that the crime is different to theft.
Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money.
I think it is, and penalties should be proportionate. That is a principle that I hold independent to any of the specifics of this case.
Paying back a victim, or "making them whole" is part of required restitution, but it's not adequate as a deterrence. If all I have to do is pay back my victims, there's very little disincentive to keep trying my schemes until I "win."
Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.
>Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.
I don't believe that is correct. In fact there's pretty good research to suggest that custodial sentences inrcease recidivism. This does not really apply to the SBF case, but I shall elaborate for the general case.
There are far more burglars in their 20's than in their 50's. The predominant characteristic amongst people over the age of 50 being convicted of burglary is previous jail time for burglary.
Research has shown the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail, and to a lesser extent gaining a criminal record. People are far more often criminals by circumstance than by nature.
> the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail
I think it’s just getting older. If they’re a recivifism risk, locking them up until they’re older can be argued to serve the public good. If they’re not, you’re right, don’t jail them. The argument is essentially against short prison sentences; either find another way to punish or commit to locking them up until they’re 60.
> Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible
The goals of penal sanctions are “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation” [1].
Bankman-Fried is a sociopath. He isn’t going to be rehabilitated, his continuing pursuit of a pardon proves that. The benefits in jailing him are mainly in the first three: retribution, deterrence and incapacitation.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB1...
> Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money.
No, because the crime is the same either way. The crime is "misuse of funds", full stop.
If recklessly using those funds is also a crime, then there should be an extra charge tacked on, which would presumably increase penalties on conviction.
Agreed. I've seen local officials convicted of misusing an offical credit card for groceries and other personal purchases, even though they paid everything back and there was no "loss" to the taxpayers. But they were still misusing public credit for personal benefit.
Of course it was a pretty clear pattern of usage over time, not a one-time thing that could be explained as accidental.
I would disagree, solely because one or more of the following reasons:
1. the person taking the money had no guarantee that the money, or some of it, would not be lost.
2. it wasn't their intention to give all or some of it back to its rightful owners.
3. the fact that some of it could repay some of the rightful owner's was often a matter of luck, not intent (there is some overlap between 1 and 3).
SBF hits all three of these. Your intent matters. At some point SBF intended by conscious acts to run and continue running a Ponzi scheme. He wasn't trying to bail himself out of the hole other than to the extent required to keep the Ponzi scheme going and enrich himself in the process.
So, respectfully, I disagree. May there be other cases that I agree with you on, depending on the particulars? Perhaps so. But not this one.
I agree on your points of what matters.
I disagree that this was shown in the SBF case. In fact, it seems much of the case was based on the fact that these points were not pertinent to the charges he faced. Which is also likely why his appeal failed. The argument that he was disallowed from making would have spoken to those issues. If it had have been relevant to the charges, he should have been allowed to make the argument.
Intent isn't necessarily an element required to prove fraud. Recklessness can be sufficient. Also to the extent intent is required intent to deceive is sufficient, ie the intent to cause someone to rely on a false statement, even if there's no intent to harm because you're convinced your fraudulent scheme will ultimately lead to success.
This is how people who get to the top act, the ones you see at the top are the ones who correctly guessed the roulette number .
If you want to become successful sooner or later you'd have to do the same .
As I realized this I am slowly but steadily abandoning the race for money and I am trying to approach it by finding the best deals for the stuff that I like as money saved is money earned and there is very little difference between experiencing a top 85 percentile thing and a top 99.999 percentile thing , but that last 15% man that is what the money exonential really goes crazy