IMHO we need to impose incredibly stiff penalties on those who perform such large, damaging crimes that undermine societal trust. These criminals do not care about being slightly less rich, and imposing penalties is likely to just result in the consumer getting shafted to make up for the loss. We should bring back the stockade and public execution for these pirates.

> These criminals do not care about being slightly less rich

That's not what was suggested. What was suggested was "as big as he can actually afford and a ban on working on government and financial positions".

That's called "punitive damages" when they scale to what the criminal can bear, rather than what damage they caused.

I do think these criminals would care about losing _most_ of their money and being barred from working in their field.

They'll just get some bullshit gig at a think-tank or as an "advisor" from one of their crony friends they helped prop up. Maybe a nice $400,000 speaking gig here and there at Goldman Sachs. Sure the odd man might get tossed aside as a token gesture to demonstrate how they're just as subject to rule of law as us common folk, but to think that these confidence men will just accept their fate and fade into obscurity is laughable.

They don’t have to fade into obscurity. The point is just to make it painful. People avoid pain.

Implicit in your comment is that these people have a network that will make them whole no matter what.

A) That’s only true for the very top.

B) Even if they are made whole, the more times the network has to “make someone whole” it gets harder to justify the criminality. Over time the network will start leaving people out to dry.

Also, your comment is unnecessarily dismissive. Your position is valid, you can just state it without trying to insult my intelligence and we can carry on a conversation.

I think yours is a defensible position, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Scammers, while not posing immediate physical danger to others, can still pose enormous harm to many people. Banning them from engaging in various financial positions may not prevent them from running scams from outside the normal financial system.

For this person, I think I could support just a fine and a ban on working in the finance industry. I think it's likely he regrets what he did, and is unlikely to cause further harm to society. But there are people like Bernie Madoff (and people who only aspire to be as big a scammer as Madoff) who I think pose a continued, further harm to society.

What would your proposed punishment be for someone who directly scams millions of dollars from elderly retired people, leaving them with nothing? A fine? Great - he’s been able to play with the pensioners cash for years before being caught, now he has to give some of it back?

Take all the millions (and more) from them leaving them only the amount of money necessary for humble survival (a cheap room rental and mediocre meals) and give the money back to the victims.

What makes you think there would be more money than what the scammer took? You think scammers are likely to reinvest their earnings and make more than what they spend? Doubt it.

This is no punishment at all.

Ok, let's spend $33000 more on them every ear just to torture them by keeping them in the horrible conditions of a prison for the sweet sense of revenge...

> What makes you think there would be more money than what the scammer took?

They probably had something before they have committed the scam and they also might have been getting their fancy salary during the scam too...

Fancy salary? Where did you get the idea that con men have fancy salaries? You're literally saying that fraud should have no consequences.

It is clear that fines or losing their job have not been effective deterrents for the men committing these crimes. Perhaps we could try actual enforcement of the law and see how it goes.

I agree that the blunt blade of crime -> prison time is probably not the most efficient or effective deterrent or rehabilitation in every case. However, we (in the States) have constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment", which is what prevents judges from getting much more creative than varying lengths of incarceration. The first judge to start blazing this trail would probably just get shot down on appeal.

wasn't there a judge somewhere that gave people a choice between a "creative" punishment and a traditional one? I found at least one example at http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-judge-unusual-punishments-peop...

Unsure what the legal justification is though