For me, SBF's fraud is a comorbidity but not likely the underlying cause of the suicides. By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

Personally, I'm glad SBF is being held accountable but this sentence seems very harsh, especially given that I expect all of his coconspirators will mostly be let off the hook.

> By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

If it was for me to decide - yes, absolutely.

> By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

If they committed crimes to sell tobacco (which, to my knowledge, is true for at least some of them), absolutely, yes.

One of the victims at the sentencing mentioned that there were at least 3 suicides.

Maybe don't send your money to an unregulated startup in the Bahamas to gamble on cryptocurrencies if losing that money is going to cause you to commit suicide?

The "victims" knew they were intentionally avoiding government oversight of securities law, banking regulators, etc. When they lost money we should have collectively shrugged our shoulders and said that's the risk they chose to take.

It sounds callous, but if accept the suggestion that he's responsible for their deaths, how can we then excuse people working in the casinos or other gambling ventures that surely lead to the deaths of many.

Or would folks here suggest the numerous HN contributors who have worked in gambling tech are deserving of life in prison as well?

Prosecuting individual contributors to gambling is too far, but prosecuting C-level execs of gambling companies is correct to me.

Gambling, like finance, has rules. If I start a casino, and tell everyone that the roulette is fair, and then go ahead and rig it so no one ever wins, then yea, I should be sent straight to prison.

If SBF told everyone loud and clear "hey guys you can give me money and I will use it to gamble on my favorite crypto tokens and play board games with Caroline" then I don't think he would deserve a prison sentence (but he also wouldn't get any customers). It's the deception that makes it a crime.

Maybe that girl shouldn't have worn that skirt, maybe that black guy shouldn't have been in that town after sunset, maybe that guy shouldn't have had a boyfriend.

There was a trial and now a sentencing, your argument according to law is wrong.

Also, don't run such a startup if you want to avoid 25 years in prison.

Is there any limiting principle to your remarkably stupid* rationale where everyone assumes all risk of their decisions implicitly and explicitly?

*: yes stupid, not an ad hominem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc

This is the most reasonable take I've seen about this.

Blaming the victim is a reasonable take? That's genuinely insane.

I would enumerate a number of immediate logical consequences of this idiocy, but that would be illegal (a shame, really).