> Secondly, when funds of this scale are stolen, inevitably people wind up dying early from things like stress, and suicides.

Yep, it was mentioned in sentencing today by one of the victims.

At least 3 have already committed suicide after the shit hit the fan.

As fuming as I am, there are I think 30 attempts and 7 successes out of 100k males per year? so we still need to prove that it is above average. And above average of the median cryptocurrency owner, because they may have a risk profile too.

And then, yes, trial SBF for each of them as murder on top of embezzlement.

The problem is that financial distress is a direct cause of suicide. It’s like Sam shooting one of his clients and claim the death rate among his clients is still below the national average.

You don't need to prove that it's above average. You need to prove that they'd still have killed themselves if SBF hadn't defrauded them.

(Well, really, the opposite: you need to prove that their suicide was a direct result of SBF's fraud. And I don't think that's an impossible -- or even difficult -- bar to reach, here.)

One especially hard thing for sentencing public policy is when every crime is compared to every other crime.

It is impossible, I think, to come up with a "ranking" of crimes that everyone can agree on. And because that's impossible, anyone can always point to a sentence of someone else who received too little or too much in comparison.

I understand the desire to scale sentences by impact. But, I personally think it would be reasonable to give SBF the same exact sentence even if he had defrauded people out of twice as much or half as much money.

An often forgotten aspect of sentencing is that once a criminal has done something evil, we still want there to be incentives for them to not do further evil things, as well as to co-operate with authorities.

That can play out into, say, giving both a murderer and a scammer 25 years in prison, provided that they turn themselves in and otherwise co-operate with the legal process.

I'm sure police officers would rather go into houses to arrest people knowing that whatever the suspect has done, they're going to get another 25 years in jail if they fight back. Arresting someone who has no hope at all, regardless of what they do, is simply more dangerous.

To me it is an absurd comparison.

Someone stealing a billion dollars is committing a far worse crime than someone that murders me.

The problem I have with this is imagine what a statistical poll would be if you posed the question "would you spend 20 years in jail for 1 billion?"

There is a good percentage that absolutely would sign up for that, obviously a much different result than "would you spend life in prison to get a billion dollars".

I think a more interesting question would be around risk of getting caught. Like, would you do it if you had a 10% chance of getting caught and going to jail? 20%? 30%? 50%?

> Secondly, when funds of this scale are stolen, inevitably people wind up dying early from things like stress, and suicides.

Let's not forget that the time they spend living before dying of things like stress and suicide will often be quite painful too. Deaths of despair are no fun.

These are so-called states worse than death.