I've seen reports that it's somewhat common for the rich in China[1], so there might be some info on what it costs there, and maybe some extrapolation could be made. Either the "serve prison in lieu of me" or "say you were the one that committed the crime" version. There are weird perverse incentives at play in some of the laws of criminal justice system in China.[2]

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339051

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10173395 (warning, the linked article describes very disturbing behavior and specific instances)

Not so long ago the heir to the Red Bull fortune was alleged to have driven his Ferrari through a police check point at speed, killing an officer. Since it was a police officer killed, the matter was investigated and the mangled Ferrari found on the estate. One of the house hold staff came forward, claiming he was the driver. Apparently this is somewhat expected in these situations. But it did ruffle lots of feathers, so the poor heir had to go on the run for a while. But no worry, a few years later all charges are dropped because everyone has been compensated and it was a while ago, so lets just let bygones be bygones, and go back to dealing with the stress of being a member of Thailand's 2nd wealthiest family.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-24/thailand-charges-agai...

To add the latest update to the story, the public outcry continues to be strong and after going back-and-forth on whether to pursue prosecution of the heir, the police asked Interpol to issue a red notice: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/world/asia/thailand-red-b...

It may sound a bit barbaric, but the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.

(However, if you look at the incentives and deterrence, inflicting inefficient punishment like sending someone to prison for a long time, might still make sense.)

No reason we can't do both.

There's a maximum amount of punishment you want to mete out to convicts. Otherwise everything would carry a penalty worse than death.

So there's a trade-off between handing out more of that punishment in fines to be paid to the victim or in economically inefficient activities like prison time.

As a related matter, I think corporal punishment deserves more consideration. Mostly because it's cheaper to administer than prison, and also avoids forcible socializing convicts only with each other as happens in prison.

(Of course, it's a punishment with a certain cruelty. Alas violence and injury are a common enough sight in overcrowded prisons, too.)

The person we're discussing is heir to a $20 billion fortune. A fine that would constitute actual punishment to him is in the billions. Which I'm entirely in favor of here, preferably 19.9 billion or higher.

But restitution isn't punishment. Restitution helps reduce harm to the victim, and is a separate issue entirely to punishment.

Sorry, I wasn't talking aware that you were talking punishment as in the need to cause pain for some abstract moral reason or to make people feel good.

I was more worried about issues like deterrence and restitution.

Punishment and deterrence are somewhat related, but not the same.

> the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.

Justice isn't always about providing benefit to those harmed. It's also about providing a framework in which crime is avoided by all because they know there are repercussions they can't avoid.

When the expectation is that you're rich and you can get away with killing someone either through paying someone to take the fall or bribery, then that will happen more often. If the expectation is that everyone is equal under the law, that will happen less.

The US isn't perfect in this regard, but I think it's a lot better than what's being described here. If Ivanka Trump drove recklessly and killed someone, it would be a lot harder for it to play out the same way here. That's not to say she would necessarily face justice, just that it's a lot harder to get out of it, so there wouldn't necessarily be an expectation that it will go away. There's a huge difference in expecting to get away with something and knowing it's uncertain when the consequences are years in prison.

However, do compare wrongful death claims in the US which are handled in a civil suit.

O.J. Simpson famously got off with 'not guilty' in the murder case, but lost the civil suit.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civi...

Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state. I believe there's also a lower bar, and civil court works by "a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". The courts serve different purposes.

> Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state.

This is somewhat inaccurate; while it is true that criminal cases can only be brought by the State, civil cases can be brought by the State or private parties.

Oh, good to know, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! :)

Though as far as I can tell, the state only gets treated like any other private party in a civil suit.

This reminds me of the classic phrase, “the butler did it”. It took me ages to realise that butlers aren’t naturally villainous, but rather were expected to take the fall for any malfeasance committed by the family.

> It took me ages to realise that butlers aren’t naturally villainous, but rather were expected to take the fall for any malfeasance committed by the family.

I just realized that in Oct 28th, 2020. Thanks for that.

This might or might not be true, but it's not the origin of "the butler did it".

The origin of the phrase is in the classical detective story trope.

> The origin of the phrase is in the classical detective story trope.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, itself doesn't derive from household staff taking the fall for their employers, but from them being omnipresent but, by strong social custom, ignored.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure that's the case. So while checking the motives of the high society suspects, nobody would suspect the lowly butler -- which, in another trope, had some dark past related to the family he was employeed at...

edit- after reading up on this, I'm not sure where you got your information from but everything I could find shows it to just be the common detective/mystery trope.

It just follows logically that historically some powerful families would have paid off a fall guy if necessary, and they could have used a butler in some cases. This could've been the origin of the term, before it even showed up in murder mysteries. Perhaps from the 1700s

>This could've been the origin of the term, before it even showed up in murder mysteries. Perhaps from the 1700s

The thing is, it doesn't show up in murder mysteries themselves (except only as a fourth-wall breaking meta-reference to the trope).

It originates with murder mystery readers -- as the name of a trope.

I bet a good butler is much harder to find than a patsy.

Yes. Though you need a patsy who would have conceivably eg have access to the fancy cars.

But... Were they really?

Is this happening in movies under my nose?

Whoa.

There have even been death penalty cases that someone else takes the fall for, usually a terminally ill patient who wants their family looked after.

Per a friend still happening in India and affordable to a surprising percentage of the population

Probably more of a price in terms of favors and relationships than money. e.g. If a mob could somehow bust you out then you belong to them for some percent of the prison time. Just a guess though.

Do you mean busting out as in a violent prison break, or having the right connections and bribes and intimidation behind the scenes?