Execute Ken Lay? (Enron)

[betazed]

Before we go any further, are you (el_machinae and betazed) considering paying for all crimes or specific types?

I would say for all crimes but seeing how Ram already hates me so much I will go easy and say specific types (but that would be really inclusive of most crimes). Only exceptional crimes (like crimes against humanity etc. cannot be paid for).

 

[warpus]

But you do! You can hire kick-ass lawyers if you have money who will make sure you stay out of jail and no one can stop you from doing that.

Sure, but they won't be able to do that if you're actually guilty and there's enough evidence.

 

[Rambuchan]

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere; but you are really tying yourself in a Gordian Knot here.

We will get somewhere when you finally answer this: what is to stop him reoffending in your scheme?

So what you are telling me is that the purpose of laws and court etc. is that if a crime is committed then the punishment should be such that we make sure that the crime committer can never ever commit that crime again.

No, the remuneration to society also happens with the fines and repossessions. That's also why the justice system is there. But only one part.

If that is so, then the only punishment for murder is death. Are you for it? And how do you punish petty theft. Life (literally) in prison, or should we cut off his hands?

Dude, you are now mixing up petty theft with what I must remind you in a grand scale corporate fraud case. Let's focus on things that are not petty. No death. Let him think about it.

 

[blackheart]

I would say for all crimes but seeing how Ram already hates me so much I will go easy and say specific types (but that would be really inclusive of most crimes). Only exceptional crimes (like crimes against humanity etc. cannot be paid for).

Sure they do. But not as frequently as poor people. 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?

So by having a system where most crimes can be paid off, how exactly would this be fair to the poor, who wouldn't have the money to pay it?

 

[Rambuchan]

I would say for all crimes but seeing how Ram already hates me so much I will go easy and say specific types (but that would be really inclusive of most crimes). Only exceptional crimes (like crimes against humanity etc. cannot be paid for).

I don't hate as easy as I get offended.

So by having a system where most crimes can be paid off, how exactly would this be fair to the poor, who wouldn't have the money to pay it?

Precisely. This is a second unanswered question which has been repeatedly posed and ignored.

 

[betazed]

We will get somewhere when you finally answer this: what is to stop him reoffending in your scheme?

Nothing. But as I said, I did not think that was the purpose of our current system. How do you currently make sure a murderer will not murder again, or a defrauder will not fraud again? You don't.

You punish him if you can and hope for the best.

Which is what I am doing except additionally I am taking money and putting it to good use and not adding to the national debt.

Dude, you are now mixing up petty theft with what I must remind you in a grand scale corporate fraud case. Let's focus on things that are not petty. No death. Let him think about it.

So according to you the concept of justice changes with the type of crime? Hmmm... interesting...

 

[betazed]

So by having a system where most crimes can be paid off, how exactly would this be fair to the poor, who wouldn't have the money to pay it?

It would not be any more fair directly except that they would not be worse off either. But indirectly, we can make it eminently fair by channelling the money obtained to programs for the poor; couldn't we?

 

[blackheart]

It would not be any more fair directly except that they would not be worse off either. But indirectly, we can make it eminently fair by channelling the money obtained to programs for the poor; couldn't we?

It's still unfair because those with money can buy their way out.

Indirectly, it doesn't really matter. Putting more money into social programs may or may not help, but that's a long-term effort and wouldn't apply to the individuals that are involved in the system. And I wouldn't want to give this government anymore money to pork barrel.

 

[Rambuchan]

Nothing. But as I said, I did not think that was the purpose of our current system. How do you currently make sure a murderer will not murder again, or a defrauder will not fraud again? You don't. You punish him if you can and hope for the best.

What did you think the prisons and rehabilitaton schemes were for then? What is their purpose? Man you're getting sloppy now. You keep leaving these things out which just delays matters.

You punish him if you can and hope for the best.
Which is what I am doing except additionally I am taking money and putting it to good use and not adding to the national debt.

I am not hoping for the best with this individual. Besides, you'll be adding to the national debt more because you'll have to keep catching him, trying him (damn expensive that, like you say), and dealing with the defrauding of other citizens all over again. Not to mention loads of other knock on trials and companies going under. Once more you're coming with loads of holes man.

So according to you the concept of justice changes with the type of crime? Hmmm... interesting...

Yes it fits the crime accordingly. Getting tiresome now.

 

[betazed]

It's still unfair because those with money can buy their way out.

Those with money already do that!!!! So what is the difference anyway?

Indirectly, it doesn't really matter. Putting more money into social programs may or may not help, but that's a long-term effort and wouldn't apply to the individuals that are involved in the system. And I wouldn't want to give this government anymore money to pork barrel.

hey, you don't want social programs your choice. Knock yourself out. I have no opinions about that (at least in this thread). All I said was that indirectly it is at least possible. In the present system it is impossible. So my system is better!

 

[blackheart]

Those with money already do that!!!! So what is the difference anyway?

No, they don't?

hey, you don't want social programs your choice. Knock yourself out. I have no opinions about that (at least in this thread). All I said was that indirectly it is at least possible. In the present system it is impossible. So my system is better!

Is it? You haven't given any persuasion as to why it would be better. I didn't say whether or not I wanted social programs either.

 

[betazed]

What did you think the prisons and rehabilitaton schemes were for then? What is their purpose? Man you're getting sloppy now.

You tell me their purpose! Because I am at a loss.

if their purpose was to make sure that there are no repeat offenders then they are a miserable failure (look at statistics). I thought it was more like an eye for an eye sorta thing going on here with these prisons and all. Worse putting someone in prison increases the statistical probability that their next generation will also be in prison (not to mention the fact that he/she will also again be in prison).

Don't believe me? Ask someone with a rap sheet attached to his resume.

I am not hoping for the best with this individual. Besides, you'll be adding to the national debt more because you'll have to keep catching him, trying him (damn expensive that, like you say), and dealing with the defrauding of other citizens all over again. Not to mention loads of other knock on trials and companies going under. Once more you're coming with loads of holes man.
Yes it fits the crime accordingly.

You say all this as if your sending him to prison will make all this go away. All it does is at best delays it. At worst right now he does not go to prison and just carries on merrily.

Getting tiresome now.

You can always quit you know.

You haven't given any persuasion as to why it would be better. I didn't say whether or not I wanted social programs either.

Actually, I was of the opinion that it is not worse off than the present system. But now that I think about it, yeah it is better. Society is getting all this money which it can spend in what it likes. How can it be not better than actually spening money to feed the criminal for the rest of his life?

Have you seen how much the US prison system cost?

 

[El_Machinae]

You tell me their purpose! Because I am at a loss.

In my opinion, the purpose of the Criminal Justice system is to reduce the incidence and severity of crime. It does this in three (sometimes competing) ways. It gets the authority to remove rights from citizens under the principles of self-defence.

The three methods of reducing crime are:
- as a deterrence: the threat of punishment will stop some people from committing a crime. On a personal note, this often works for me, and is one reason why I don't break some laws
- 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")
- 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.

There is no need to serve big "J" Justice.

 

[AVN]

Normally I'm absolutely against the death penalty.

But for crimes like this, where 1000's of people are seriously hurted, probably even causing the death of a few of them, I think that serious punishments are in order. Life in prison would be reasonable for me, but if the death penalty exist (even if I'm against it) then I think it's an acceptable verdict. I'm not going on the barricades to save Ken Lay from that punishment.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Normally I'm absolutely against the death penalty.

I am always against it, who are we to say you should die? Rehabilitation is the way to go when it comes to crime.

 

[LLXerxes]

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.

Although I do think what he has done is wrong, we shouldn't kill him, and we won't kill him. For all the lives he's ruined, we can make him suffer by having him spend the rest of his life in prison, in the terrible conditions, with other horny inmates (^_^) who are men (at least one of which he has affected in some way) and let it pan out?

 

[MobBoss]

I am always against it, who are we to say you should die? Rehabilitation is the way to go when it comes to crime.

Yeah, but who cares to have Charles Manson coming out to fix your cable?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yeah, but who cares to have Charles Manson coming out to fix your cable?

I didn't say we should just start letting serial killers, murderers, etc., out of jail. I just said no to the death penalty, and that our justice needs to focus more on rehabilitation.

 

[MjM]

Prison for Life is too easy, and though he didnt technically kill anyone, the Death Penalty will make an example. So, that's the way to go.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Prison for Life is too easy, and though he didnt technically kill anyone, the Death Penalty will make an example. So, that's the way to go.

The death penalty just sets the example that violence can solve problems. I don't want criminals to think that.