24 Years for Accounting Fraud?

[Stone]

This is some shit:

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...-Exec-Fra.html

A federal judge ordered a crushing 24-year prison sentence Thursday for a former Dynegy Inc. executive in an accounting fraud case that fell under tough new punishment rules aimed at discouraging corporate corruption.

I'll agree it's criminal for this guy to have taken part in a scheme to defraud investors that eventually resulted in over $500 million of losses (according to the prosecutors) for other people.

However, does that justify a 24 year prison sentence - 20+ years of which have to be served without parole? The guy is going to be 60+ when he gets out. Why not just kill the fucker?

I understand strong sentencing for crimes like rape, murder, even armed burglary - they physically endanger other people, and when the criminal who committed those acts is released, there's no way to ensure that they won't commit those crimes again.

In this case, there's no way for the executive to harm anyone like this again - even if he could gain access to a copy of Excel, no one's going to let him near their corporate books.

Strong sentences are worthwhile when they deter crime, but the deterrent effect of 24 years isn't much greater than the deterrent effect of 10 years - either sentence is a number most people couldn't do. The extra 14 years is like some sort of brutal gravy.

And, it's obvious the judge didn't want to give this guy 24 years - he knew that the penalty he was handing out was unnecessarily harsh, yet, he had no say in the matter, because of bullshit mandated sentences - in this case sentencing mandated by a Congress who felt like they had to show that they were tough on "corporate crime".

Fuck three strikes laws, fuck mandated sentencing - I'll take "judicial activism" over the justice of the mob filtered through vote-mongering congresspeople anyday.

[burgundy]

While I tend to agree, I think the same argument can be used to completely tear apart the drug offense sentencing guidelines and the death penalty.

[voltz]

In this scenerio I'd do the following

- beat the fuck out of prison cops

- constently attack and harm inmates

I wouldn't give a damn anymore what happens. If my freedom was to be taken away, it's gonna take nothing less then a bullet to keep their system running smoothly

But the other case scenerio

- breaking out of prison and working underground

Yeah, living like a felon on the run is one thing, but turning to the crime lifestyle wouldn't be so bad once you've already been marked an enemy of the state. Die on your feet or live on your knees!

[Stone]

While I tend to agree, I think the same argument can be used to completely tear apart the drug offense sentencing guidelines and the death penalty.

Well, yeah, everything I said above goes for drug offense sentencing guidelines, but more forcefully - the drug laws are noticeably worse, because drug users cause even less harm and because the laws directly prey on minority communities that have enough to deal with as is.

I don't believe our government should administer the death penalty, but I don't think the argument above can be directly transferred over to a discussion about the death penalty - I think it's a different, valid subject.

[burgundy]

Also, Stone, you're confusing deterrence with incapacitation. Yeah, this guy is never going to have a chance to bilk investors out of money again, but Scott Peterson is unlikely to ever kill a pregnant girlfriend again either. Incapacitation deals with the offending individual himself, and one goal of punishment is to prevent him from committing a crime again.

Deterrence, however, is the preventive effect on the rest of society of the punishment given to one man. If this sentence prevents other similarly situated execs from committing the same crimes, then it does its job from a deterrence perspective. Your point about sentencing length is valid, but don't expect me to shed a tear for this guy.

[voltz]

Deterrence, however, is the preventive effect on the rest of society of the punishment given to one man. If this sentence prevents other similarly situated execs from committing the same crimes, then it does its job from a deterrence perspective.

That is the effectiveness of it, while harsh it could keep many business execs in line.

[burgundy]

I don't believe our government should administer the death penalty, but I don't think the argument above can be directly transferred over to a discussion about the death penalty - I think it's a different, valid subject.

Without turning this into a death penalty debate, I think one aspect of it is related - that the death sentence doesn't deter any more crime than a life sentence without parole. This is a fairly well established empirical fact.

Of course, dead murderers are more effectively incapacitated than live ones with a shot at parole, but that's more because of the sad shape of our prison system, thanks to - you guessed it - mandatory sentencing guidelines.

That is the effectiveness of it, while harsh it could keep many business execs in line.

His point was a 10-year sentence would be just as effective as a 24-year sentence, so the latter is excessive.

My counterpoint is that many sentences are excessively harsh because they give prosecutors bargaining leeway. Plea bargaining gets a bad rap, but in truth, it's an essential component of our criminal justice system - not just to entice defendants into turning over useful information, but to expedite cases through an overburdened justice system. I'm sure this guy was offered a much more generous bargain, but he decided to take the high road, and he paid for it.

[Stone]

Also, Stone, you're confusing deterrence with incapacitation. Yeah, this guy is never going to have a chance to bilk investors out of money again, but Scott Peterson is unlikely to ever kill a pregnant girlfriend again either. Incapacitation deals with the offending individual himself, and one goal of punishment is to prevent him from committing a crime again.

Deterrence, however, is the preventive effect on the rest of society of the punishment given to one man. If this sentence prevents other similarly situated execs from committing the same crimes, then it does its job from a deterrence perspective. Your point about sentencing length is valid, but don't expect me to shed a tear for this guy.

I understand strong sentencing for crimes like rape, murder, even armed burglary - they physically endanger other people, and when the criminal who committed those acts is released, there's no way to ensure that they won't commit those crimes again.

In this case, there's no way for the executive to harm anyone like this again - even if he could gain access to a copy of Excel, no one's going to let him near their corporate books.

Strong sentences are worthwhile when they deter crime, but the deterrent effect of 24 years isn't much greater than the deterrent effect of 10 years - either sentence is a number most people couldn't do. The extra 14 years is like some sort of brutal gravy.

A sentence of 10 years and a sentence of 24 years have functionally identical deterrent capabilities - either one is more than enough jail time to fuck up your life forever, enough to pose as much of a threat to your sense of self-preservation as jail time ever will.

Because the deterrence effect of a 10 year sentence and a 24 year sentence is near identical, the only value in that extra 14 year stretch is in its ability to incapacitate the executive - to ensure that he's not going to be bilking investors for a very long time.

Now, while Scott Petersen is unlikely to go to jail, get out of jail, get a girlfriend, get her pregnant, and then kill her, it's not inconcievable that, if he's killed already, he might kill again - maybe someone who pisses him off, maybe some chick he hasn't managed to knock up yet, whatever. All he needs to kill again is a weapon and a person. The only way for us to ensure he can't is to incapacitate him with jail.

This executive is never going to be able to again put himself in a position to commit the crime he was tried for - no one's going to let him near a boardroom, so there's little to no incapacitory value to his sentence.

My counterpoint is that many sentences are excessively harsh because they give prosecutors bargaining leeway. Plea bargaining gets a bad rap, but in truth, it's an essential component of our criminal justice system - not just to entice defendants into turning over useful information, but to expedite cases through an overburdened justice system. I'm sure this guy was offered a much more generous bargain, but he decided to take the high road, and he paid for it.

That's a good point, Burgundy. I think it mentions in the article that he refused to bargain, and, yeah, he got fucked for that.

Seems unjust to me, though, to deny the accused their right to a trial by threatening them with disproportionately large prison sentences if they choose to go to trial and then lose? Sort of extra-judicial.

If I was accused of a crime, and was then given a choice between a definite 5 year sentence chance or a 50/50 shot between freedom and 30 years in jail, I guess I'd take the 5 years - whether I was guilty or not.

If the choice was between 5 years and 10 years, or 15 years, then I'd let it go to trial.

If every conviction was punishable by death, virtually every criminal would cooperate and cop a plea bargain - that'd be nice, eh?

[voltz]

My counterpoint is that many sentences are excessively harsh because they give prosecutors bargaining leeway. Plea bargaining gets a bad rap, but in truth, it's an essential component of our criminal justice system - not just to entice defendants into turning over useful information, but to expedite cases through an overburdened justice system. I'm sure this guy was offered a much more generous bargain, but he decided to take the high road, and he paid for it.

It turns into a gamble over how the case would be concluded. What's upsetting is that after someone pleads guilty, they're being forced to serve that term reguardless of the case proving innocence or not.

[Damian79]

Um, I sort of agree with Stone. If you are going to send someone for more than 10 years and when they come out they will have absolutely no use in society, just kill them. Why should my taxes be used to keep these guys in jail when they are never going to be useful to society and killing then painlessly would be so much cheaper?

Same goes for life sentences, those are simply retarded period.