Execute Ken Lay? (Enron)

[El_Machinae]

I have thus discarded my morals, ethics a long time ago.

I should really describe the logical morality of being an immortalist sometime.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Glad to see the pair of them found guilty. After 2 years of working on Sarbanes-Oxley, I'd be so naffed off if they walked free whilst causing all of this grief on the rest of us....

 

[.Shane.]

Unrelated: If these crimes were committed in a country that can enforce the deathpenalty; I think these dispicable crimes qualify. But still I am against the death-penalty.

Actually, that's quite related. That is the whole point of my original post. And I feel the same way you do about the DP.

 

[Che Guava]

I should really describe the logical morality of being an immortalist sometime.

If you start a new thread, they will come

 

[Bozo Erectus]

They were found guilty, the lucky devils. Theyre going to spend their lives in a country club with all sorts of fun activities for members, uh, I mean prisoners. You think theyre going to an actual jail, where poor people go when found guilty of a crime? They sure as hell arent.

 

[betazed]

~ Inconsistent: you complain about lawyers as being a waste of money, then they became essential to your scheme.

When did I say lawyers are a waste of money? You are putting words in my mouth. Lawyers are immaterial in my scheme since my scheme only talks about punishment and not the legal process! Sheesh, i thought you would be smart enough to understand the distinction.

~ Illogical: prison doesn't currently stop people from reoffending, so let's just set them free to reoffend again at will, with NO constraints whatsoever.

Now you are being rhetorical too!

~ Ignoring questions: so many now, gonna have to catch up.

I answer meaningful questions only.

~ Disregarding where others were coming from: let's forget this, because you like to think that cyberspace allows us freedom from courtesy in conversation.

Couetesy, Shmustesy. I will rather do without all niceties and emotions. Just stick to facts.

I notice you just ignored El Mach's post right beneath yours. Here it is again:

Give me half a chance. This is the first time I am posting since he posted. In any case, why do you cling to others arguments. Seems like you have none of your own and resort to emotional responses.

The three methods of reducing crime are:
- as a deterrence: the threat of punishment will stop some people from committing a crime.

A hefty fine (and a jail time if you can't pay it) is a deterrant. The reason people do not speed is because they will pay fine if caught.

- for rehabilitation: if a criminal can gain skills or motivation required to no longer be a criminal, then rehabilitation will reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation. Those who advocate harsh punishments for criminals often have rehabilitation as a goal ("teach them that crime doesn't pay")

This is a theoritical argument. However, noble the intent, in practice rehabilitation is a failure for the simple reason a person with prison time does not get re-integrated back into the society so easily. So practically speaking there is no real difference between teh current system which attempts to rehabilitate and fails miserably and one that does not try to rehabilitate at all.

- for protection: some people are dangerous, and if they are not incarcerated, they will attack or harm society. While they are locked up, their power to harm is reduced. Even if they cannot be deterred or rehabilitated, there is value in locking them up.

I am all for locking them up for protection of others. Add these criminals/Crimes to the list that cannot be punished as a simple fine.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because some fail through the poorer parts of the system and reoffend, let's chuck the system out? Illogical. What about increasing the standard of rehabilitation programmes that do work? Surely that's better than doing absolutely nothing to rehabilitate at all.

Ah, a lesson in logic in order. "Doing something is always better than doing nothing." This is precisely the logic given by Iraq war supporters. What you have to see is what is the cost of doing something vs. what is the cost of doing nothing. Have you done that? Do you even know about that?

What about the successful rehabilitation cases? What about the protection offered to the public during their sentence? What about deterring others from doing the same? Your masterplan contains none of this whatsoever. It's a shambles.

Seriously, I am starting to question your ability to think things through. What is the % of successfull rehabilitation? A fine does not deter you? Then why don't you speed always on all roads.

Sheesh!

Seriously, you need not continue discussing things with me, if you cannot get less emotional.

 

[Phlegmak]

I read the first two pages of this thread and the 7th. Indirectly, Ken Lay and every other Enron employee who caused blackouts are responsible for death. For example, at a traffic signal, the lights go out, and someone doesn't stop when he should. An accident happens. Someone dies. So, they're indirectly responsible. What about blackouts at night, and someone lights a candle and it causes a fire.

 

[.Shane.]

I read the first two pages of this thread and the 7th. Indirectly, Ken Lay and every other Enron employee who caused blackouts are responsible for death. For example, at a traffic signal, the lights go out, and someone doesn't stop when he should. An accident happens. Someone dies. So, they're indirectly responsible. What about blackouts at night, and someone lights a candle and it causes a fire.

I never said the word "blackouts" once.

A blackout is an accidently shutting down and they'd have nothing to do w/ Enron. You're thinking of "brownouts" which is when the power company purposefully shuts down power due to demand being too high. Again, a power company decision, not having, really, anything to do w/ Enron. Also, a "brownout" would never happen at night since the demand is reduced.

Your paragraph has nothing to do w/ the argument.

 

[allhailIndia]

I do support the death penalty, and I think what they did was not just a bit of robbery or even plain greed.
It was not just irresponsibility or carelessness.
They stole from those who trusted them on a huge scale.
The scale of what they did is frightening and they should, in my opinion, be made to feel and suffer the same anxiety, difficulty, hopelessness and despair their victims faced on seeing all their savings/earnings being destroyed so that someone could get one more private jet. Even if the death penalty is overturned ultimately, as it probably will, the anxiety of having to live on death row, to live under the constant fear of death, and the misery of the ordinary prisoner facing a death penalty would be sufficient punishment in my humble opinion.

 

[C~G]

I'm in favor of death penalty in cases that clearly indicate that the accused in question is guilty of killing someone by conscious action exception being self-defence.

So in this case Ken Lay shouldn't be executed. Spending rest of his natural life in jail should be enough as punishment for him.

It's after all about money. Life of human being is something totally different. Once taken it cannot be brought back by any means.

 

[Phlegmak]

I never said the word "blackouts" once.

A blackout is an accidently shutting down and they'd have nothing to do w/ Enron. You're thinking of "brownouts" which is when the power company purposefully shuts down power due to demand being too high. Again, a power company decision, not having, really, anything to do w/ Enron. Also, a "brownout" would never happen at night since the demand is reduced.

Your paragraph has nothing to do w/ the argument.

You don't understand. Enron DID cause brownouts. Their employees called power companies and asked those power companies to produce less electricity, causing the brownouts.

This was in the movie "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Enron employees are on tape speaking to power company employees asking them to produce less electricity, specifically to cause brownouts.

 

[.Shane.]

You don't understand. Enron DID cause brownouts. Their employees called power companies and asked those power companies to produce less electricity, causing the brownouts.

This was in the movie "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Enron employees are on tape speaking to power company employees asking them to produce less electricity, specifically to cause brownouts.

Well, then that would only be another point in favor of my argument.

As I've already said, this is all premeditated. You don't have to tell someone in the energy business what the consequences are of blackouts or brownouts.

 

[EdwardTking]

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.

Much my opinion. I find people who steal pension funds absolutely despicable. It is not like losing your job or having a brownout.

Thing is if they let him out, he will no doubt find a competent
author who will ghost write his auto-biography which would earn
him more than most people would earn in a life-time.

There is a lot of nonsense about intentions. The bank robber with
a gun doesn't want to kill anyone - he merely wants the money.
These people may not have intended the old people to die because
they could not get medical treatment, but they know that happens.

 

[blackheart]

When did I say lawyers are a waste of money? You are putting words in my mouth. Lawyers are immaterial in my scheme since my scheme only talks about punishment and not the legal process! Sheesh, i thought you would be smart enough to understand the distinction.

Betazed, you said that because people like Ken Lay would spend millions of dollars in LAWYER costs in the current judicial system, it would benefit society more if he just directly paid a fine.

A hefty fine (and a jail time if you can't pay it) is a deterrant. The reason people do not speed is because they will pay fine if caught.

Do you even drive? People DO speed and many with money continually speed because they can brush off the fines.

This is a theoritical argument. However, noble the intent, in practice rehabilitation is a failure for the simple reason a person with prison time does not get re-integrated back into the society so easily. So practically speaking there is no real difference between teh current system which attempts to rehabilitate and fails miserably and one that does not try to rehabilitate at all.

So how is it a failure if people who are in jail eventually do integrate with society after a little while? Practically speaking, you jumped from point A to point F and skipped everything else inbetween.

Ah, a lesson in logic in order. "Doing something is always better than doing nothing." This is precisely the logic given by Iraq war supporters. What you have to see is what is the cost of doing something vs. what is the cost of doing nothing. Have you done that? Do you even know about that?

Except in this case doing something (rehabilitiation) IS a lot better than nothing. Good try at steering the argument somewhere else though.

Seriously, I am starting to question your ability to think things through. What is the % of successfull rehabilitation? A fine does not deter you? Then why don't you speed always on all roads.

What are the chances of re-integrating with society if you're NOT rehabilitated? And I and about 90% of the people I know DO speed on roads. Hell even cops I know speed sometimes. Fines aren't going to do anything unless they're VERY hefty, and in that case the fines favor the rich's ability to pay and screws over the poor, which is the major flaw pointed out in your system that you haven't addressed.

Seriously, you need not continue discussing things with me, if you cannot get less emotional.

I don't see Rambuchan getting emotional at all. In fact, he's presenting things in a logical manner whilst you have done little to refute.

 

[blackheart]

I does much worse then that, it eats your soul. Face it, by normal standards I am very disturbed person and I should probably locked up in some mental institution. But screw normal, the way I see it the world is a hellhole just getting worse each day. I have thus discarded my morals, ethics a long time ago.

Nice guys finish last.

Then you're a sad delusional guy who should seek help or seclude yourself from the "hellhole" that is society.

 

[betazed]

Betazed, you said that because people like Ken Lay would spend millions of dollars in LAWYER costs in the current judicial system, it would benefit society more if he just directly paid a fine.

Spending the money on lawyers is more wasteful than other types of spending. Yes I said that before. But how do you go from there to "its a waste of money". You see no difference between "a waste of money" and "more wasteful"?

Do you even drive? People DO speed and many with money continually speed because they can brush off the fines.

No I do not drive. I live in NYC. Well, so what? Each time they speed they pay the fine. i do not see any problem with that. As long as they pay for their sins why should you hold any grudge against them? If they don't pay the fine they go to jail. Once again, I have no interest in reform. I just want the punishment to be equitable.

So how is it a failure if people who are in jail eventually do integrate with society after a little while?

When did I say its their failure?

Practically speaking, you jumped from point A to point F and skipped everything else inbetween.

hmmm... I wonder. Can you cogently state what my point A is?

Except in this case doing something (rehabilitiation) IS a lot better than nothing. Good try at steering the argument somewhere else though.

Have you shown that logically, yet?

What are the chances of re-integrating with society if you're NOT rehabilitated? And I and about 90% of the people I know DO speed on roads. Hell even cops I know speed sometimes. Fines aren't going to do anything unless they're VERY hefty,

So make them hefty. What's stopping you?

and in that case the fines favor the rich's ability to pay and screws over the poor,

For the umpteenth time, how is that different from what we already practice?

which is the major flaw pointed out in your system that you haven't addressed.

You tell me how my system is any different from what we already practice and I will tell you why it is not a flaw.

You and Ram are continually saying that I am not addressing your points. How about you guys address my points for a change. If the current system is so good why don't you answer my previous questions and I repeat...

or have you not seen the statistics of people incarcerated in America? Or are you saying that poor people are more prone to commit crimes? And how does that gel with your sense of justice?

Why do you think there are more poor people in prison today in America than rich? Why are there more blacks than white? If our justice system is so vaunted and perfect why these disparities?

Please answer those before you point the flaws in my system.

you have done little to refute.

Because I have little to refute.

Yet, in the end I will do so. I will show the problems in my system and how it subtlely differs from the existing system. I was just hoping that one of you guys would have done it instead of myself...

 

[skadistic]

These 2 "men" should be drawn and quartered.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Nah. They should be sentenced to hard labor on a chaingang, building the Great Wall of America (You can see it from space! No, really!) on the Mexican border.

 

[C~G]

Nah. They should be sentenced to hard labor on a chaingang, building the Great Wall of America (You can see it from space! No, really!) on the Mexican border.

And possible give them change to come up with scheme to bring more illegal immigrants across the border while they get money out of it?

I would try to keep them far as possible from two things: Money and people who believe they have bright future waiting ahead of them.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And possible give them change to come up with scheme to bring more illegal immigrants across the border while they get money out of it?

I would try to keep them far as possible from two things: Money and people who believe they have bright future waiting ahead of them.

I see it more like Papillon, not F-Troop Lay and Skilling wouldnt be Sgt O'Roarke and Corporal Agarn. Definitely not like Hogans Heroes either