I don't understand why we need to put this guy in jail for 25 years. Similarly, Bernie Madoff, whose crimes were far worse, was sentenced to 150 years.
For stealing money! Given that the risk of repeat offense is low, I just don't see the point of these sentences. I think they're mostly about notoriety. Meanwhile murderers and rapists get less time, and they're at high risk for re-offending.
> Given that the risk of repeat offense is low, I just don't see the point of these sentences.
Is it? Did he even admit to criminal wrong doing? The article thinks otherwise:
> Judge Lewis Kaplan, just before announcing Bankman-Fried's 25-year sentence, said there was a risk "that this man will be in a position to do something very bad in the future, and it's not a trivial risk."
> Bankman-Fried acknowledged his mistakes and said he was sorry for what happened to customers but "never a word of remorse for the commission of terrible crimes," Judge Kaplan said.
His likelihood of re-offending is low because he now has a near universally bad reputation and so is much less likely to be trusted with other people's money in the first place.
Whether that means he should have a shorter sentence depends on the purpose of criminal sentences. If the purpose is punishment or deterrence, re-offense probability isn't as relevant, but if it is merely to protect others while he is put away, it is the most relevant consideration.
Adam Neumann _should_ have an atrocious reputation given how he treats other people's money but VCs seem happy to fund his new adventures (presumably assuming they can still make money on the way up before the bust).
There would no doubt be people happy to give SBF the funds to go fleece a whole new herd of victims on the off chance he got away with it enough to make the number go up.
It's about deterrence. Imagine you're considering committing a crime. You're looking at the upside and the downside. The equation on the downside looks like this:
risk = size of punishment * probability of being caught.
So how do you deter a potential criminal who is unlikely to get caught? You have to jack up the size of the punishment to compensate for that low probability.
In other words he's not being punished for what he did; he's being punished to dissuade others from copying him. I think people should be punished for their actions and not to increase utility of society.
FWIW, I've read that multiple people committed suicide in despair of the financial ruin caused by SBF's fraud. So he did do things worthy of hefty punishment.
Stealing money may not inherently "feel" like a real crime, because money (especially digital crypto money) is a very intangible hypothetical thing. It does not resonate with our lizard brains like violence does.
However, it is a real crime. And harsh punishments like prison time are needed to remind us of that.
I'm not arguing against retribution. I'm arguing that this particular retribution is not proportional.
In terms of the chance of repeat offense...who would invest money with SBF at this point? It's not like he was mugging people, they voluntarily gave him their money.
It acts as a serious deterrent - if he got a slap on the wrist then it shows that any aspiring crypto scammer can steal millions of dollars and live the high life. You could also argue that the number of people affected by his crimes is orders of magnitude greater than the those affected by the majority of crimes, and would therefore justify such a much greater sentence.
Maybe think of money as embodied energy. If you realize that he stole 15 years of retirement from thousands of people then it may make more sense. 15 good years of your life turned into 15 bad ones, repeat thousands of times.
The judge felt if the sentence were too short he'd do it again.
Also - the real reason he's getting such a heavy handed punishment isn't because he stole money, it's because he stole money from the rich and the powerful.
It's a deterrent for other would-be white collar criminals. The punishment should match the magnitude of the fraud so it indeed does deter in proportion.
For stealing money! Given that the risk of repeat offense is low, I just don't see the point of these sentences. I think they're mostly about notoriety. Meanwhile murderers and rapists get less time, and they're at high risk for re-offending.