Execute Ken Lay? (Enron)

[.Shane.]

Now that Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling have been found guilty, its time to consider just punishment.

Normally, I'm against the death penalty. But, I value consistency more than my objection to the death penalty. So, if we can execute a ******ed guy in Texas who killed 1 old lady, surely we can execute someone who's caused misery along the lines of Ken Lay.

First you need to be able to quantity the damage. Our ******ed Texas killer killed an 80 year old lady. Given her age, he probably shortened her life by months or just a few years. I'll be generous and say he took away 5 years of her life.

But, what Ken Lay did as the head of Enron, on the scale of overall human suffering, is much worse. Not only did hundreds, if not thousands of employees lose their jobs, but many lost their life savings and retirements when Ken Lay not only immorally ruined his company but also lied to employees, telling them in the months leading up to the Enron bankruptcy, that Enron was a good investment, so that employees would not only not take out their stock, but buy more. How many of these people will have their lives shortened by days or months because of the increased stress or because for a few months (if not longer) they were without health care and may have gone bankrupt to a medical issue or were not able to treat a dangerous ailment? Lastly, what about all those Enron customers who were gouged by artificial price hikes? Did anyone die because for that winter they couldn't afford heat on jacked up prices?

Etc... etc... I could give more examples, but I think the point is made.

So, to reiterate, the sum total of suffering caused by Ken Lay is greater than the individual suffering caused by people who we've executed, thus, after the appropriate appeals, I think we should execute Ken Lay.

NOTE: To those who are unfamiliar, Ken Lay was the head of Enron (and Skilling was a very high ranking officer), a US energy company that went bankrupt several years ago. It came to be known that they had essentially "cooked the books" and were also illegally inflating energy prices. For more details, simply google it. Enron is thought by many to be one of the worst, if not the defining, corporate fraud cases in US history.

EDIT: This is a hypothetical question. If you're incapable of understanding the idea of discussing something "hypothetically", you shouldn't post.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've always thought that we need more severe punishments for white collar crimes, merely as a deterrent effect.

Right now, someone can get get 14 months for stealing $12 million, $6 million of which is stored overseas in protected bank vaults. Simple cost/benefit says that 14 months in jail for $6 million ain't so bad.

 

[Rambuchan]

Although I'm fervently opposed to the death penalty, I see Shane's point here. Consistency and relative justice to other punishments administered. There needs to be a very severe punishment for Lay. He's a criminal of one of the highest orders.

 

[luiz]

So basically you're saying that material losses are worse than murder?

 

[Rambuchan]

So basically you're saying that material losses are worse than murder?

In a sense I am, with this particular case.

Compare the magnitude of Lay, Skilling and Fastow's crimes with say some guy's from a trailer park, who robs a store and shots one person.

The cost to society from the Enron frauds is of a far greater scale than robbery involving a single killing.

 

[Zarn]

I can see why you want to execute him, but as someone staunchly against the death penalty, I still have to say no. The time he spends in jail should be very long. I don't think he should even come out.

 

[El_Machinae]

So basically you're saying that material losses are worse than murder?

We are talking about a person who shattered savings, in a country where the elderly purchase their medical care.

So, it's indirect murder. Kinda. Though that's tricky ground.

I think the punishment should be commensurate on the amount of damage done AND as an appropriate deterrent. I would highly suspect this fellow has millions in the Caymen islands.

 

[.Shane.]

So basically you're saying that material losses are worse than murder?

If it shortens your life expectancy, its not material anymore, is it?

So, a person loses their job due to Lay's illegal behavior. For the few months he's w/out health insurance, he contracts a major illness. At that point, several things could happen. He could get sub-par health care, resulting in a disability, effecting his life expectancy. He could bankrupt himself, and thus, w/ his retirement gone, he works longer and harder, also shortening his life expectency.

Etc... I can think of dozens of other examples.

Given the magnitude of the Enron fiasco, I'm saying the overall loss of life expectency is FAR greater than some of the losses of life that we've executed people over.

I can see why you want to execute him, but as someone staunchly against the death penalty, I still have to say no. The time he spends in jail should be very long. I don't think he should even come out.

You're missing the point. I too, am against the death penalty. This is, obviously, a hypothetical argument that is also an exercise, to a degree, in satire.

So, IF we must have a death penalty, I'm arguing, that for consistencies sake, what Lay has done is far worse than things we've executed some people for.

 

[El_Machinae]

If it shortens your life expectancy, its not material anymore, is it?

Under that theory, the people who suppressed the harms of cigarettes (under oath) should be under more severe punishment that other purgerors?

 

[.Shane.]

Under that theory, the people who suppressed the harms of cigarettes (under oath) should be under more severe punishment that other purgerors?

Yes and no. I think that the difference w/ Lay and his merry band of pirates is the intentional deception, fraud, and lying. Say what you want about cigarette companies lying, but I knew at age 8 they were bad news. The same cannot be said about someone who's power is turned off because they cannot afford the illegally fixed rates.

 

[Zarn]

You're missing the point. I too, am against the death penalty. This is, obviously, a hypothetical argument that is also an exercise, to a degree, in satire.

So, IF we must have a death penalty, I'm arguing, that for consistencies sake, what Lay has done is far worse than things we've executed some people for.

My point is that no matter what happened in the past and to whom, the death penalty is still inexcusable. It is like you are trying to get around the immorality of the death penalty, just because the guy was 'white-collar.' If you are truly against the death penalty, you souldn't say 'if we must have it,' because you know we do not need to have it.

 

[luiz]

Compare the magnitude of Lay, Skilling and Fastow's crimes with say some guy's from a trailer park, who robs a store and shots one person.

The cost to society from the Enron frauds is of a far greater scale than robbery involving a single killing.

But than you're putting a price in a human life.

So if some guys murders someone and than pays a "blood price" equivalent to the Enron's fraud should I assume that evything is OK and he should walk free? According to your logic he did more good than harn to society and thus it would be unfair to punish him.

 

[.Shane.]

But than you're putting a price in a human life.

So if some guys murderes someone and than pays a "blood price" equivalent to the Enron's fraud should I assume that evything is OK and he should walk free? According to your logic he did more harm than good to society and thus it would be unfair to punish him.

Don't be so naive. We put a price on human life all the time. Insurance policies, government payments to the families of dead soldiers, the whole criminal justice system is about quantifying and valueing life. The whole concept of the death penalty is about "putting a price on human life".

I have no idea what you mean by "blood price". I'm saying we've set the bar pretty low for execution in some parts of the country and I think that Lay's crimes easily exceed that.

@Zarn, (psstt... I don't really think he should be executed, don't tell anyone). But, I'm able, for sake of discussion to make certain assumptions to debate a point. In this case, I put aside my opposition of the death penalty to consider the relativism of punishment.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think he means.

"Can the murderer give $100 billion to society, to buy off his debt?"

 

[GenMarshall]

I am not an avocate nor do I support the death penalty. I feel that life in prision should suffice.

 

[.Shane.]

I think he means.

"Can the murderer give $100 billion to society, to buy off his debt?"

ROFL, of course not, nor have I suggested that.

 

[Masquerouge]

I hope he gets life.

 

[luiz]

ROFL, of course not, nor have I suggested that.

Haven't you?
Say that 100 billion is used at medical research(or buying medicine for the poor) and increases the life expectancy of the general population in a couple of years.

So basically when you subtract the shortage of life expectancy caused by the murder from the total increase caused by research, you still have a tremendously positive number.

You were arguing precisely that the crime should be punished according to the general reduction of life expectancy. In this case there was actually an increase, and thus the murderer should be rewarded, if anything.

 

[.Shane.]

You were arguing precisely that the crime should be punished according to the general reduction of life expectancy. In this case there was actually an increase, and thus the murderer should be rewarded, if anything.

I'm not making the argument. I'm extending it from what we already do. If I shoot you and you don't die, will I be executed? No, because you didn't die. Therefore, we've made a valuation on life. We also must consider motivation. So, if I shoot and kill you out of self-defense, that's different that if I kill you to collect on your life insurance policy or to steal your car.

So, in Ken Lay's case, his motivation was akin to what is worthy of execution. Meaning, he did it maliciously, with intent, and was willing to harm people to enrich himself.

And, the damage he caused, on net, to 1000s and 1000s of people is a much greater harm to society than the murder of 1 person.

 

[Zarn]

I see what you are doing, but I don't see the point of the exercise. Why debate something you do not believe.

You don't believe in execution, but you do think this person who screws people out of jobs would deserve it more than a person who has killed someone had you believed in the death penalty. Killing someone is worse than people losing jobs. People can get new jobs (although the community has to help for alot of them), but they generally do not come back to life after being killed. Could that old woman have said good bye to her family, if it happened in a hospital several or even more years later? Yes, but she was denied even that. Dying and being murdered is two completely different things.