To you the value of somebody else's life may be $10M. To society, it varies with time and place. Yet, to the person in question, the value could well be infinite -- it's probably infinite more often than not -- i.e. no amount of money will induce somebody to die. When you kill somebody, you rob that person of everything they have, everything they ever will have, and of the value they've placed on their own life.
But we're speaking of society. Is SBF a physical danger to society? Clearly not. He's not going to rob and murder you if he catches you in the park after sundown. His reputation is destroyed, and from a harm mitigation perspective it should be enough to monitor his economic activity and make sure he isn't in a position to run any more frauds.
If you seek punitive measures, that's all well and good, but it should be done in a way that's equitable and according to a theory of punishment that's applied uniformly. I don't believe that exists, and jailing a non-violent criminal for such a period of time, when extremely violent criminals serve less time and are then allowed to reintegrate into society (often with poor results,) seems both strange and wrong.
Not true; people have committed suicide due to financial losses that they believe have destroyed their life and made it not worth living. If any FTX customers ended up killing themselves over this (I saw a post somewhere upthread claiming that was true, though I haven't verified that), isn't that just as bad? Certainly the intent is different in the case of a murderer vs. someone who incidentally drives someone to suicide by stealing their life savings. But the end result is still the same.
Regardless of that, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that a person would value their own life at infinite dollars. Certainly I don't want to die, but would I expect or want an unbounded amount of money to be spent in order to keep me alive? No, I don't think so; that feels selfish and would undoubtedly harm others.
And people will do some funny things to help their family, including working a job where eventual death due to a job-related accident or illness is inevitable. While that's not the same as someone agreeing to be killed in exchange for money, it seems relevant. And hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few (financially desperate) people in the world who would agree to be murdered in exchange for their family being financially taken care of for the rest of their lives.
> non-violent criminal [...] violent criminals
I really dislike this bucketing. It ignores quite a spectrum of crime: punching someone in the face at a bar is not the same as stabbing someone who survives is not the same as shooting someone who dies. And violent crimes-of-passion are not the same as cold, calculated, planned violence.
I'm just not convinced that a violent crime is automatically worse than a non-violent one.
And the terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary. I would consider it incredibly violent to deprive someone of their savings and livelihood.
I'm not sure what this guy's obsession with violent crime is. What SBF did was incredibly violent. He destroyed the fortunes of thousands of people in a way that caused visceral material harm. I'd rather get punched in the face than lose years of savings.
To you the value of somebody else's life may be $10M. To society, it varies with time and place. Yet, to the person in question, the value could well be infinite -- it's probably infinite more often than not -- i.e. no amount of money will induce somebody to die. When you kill somebody, you rob that person of everything they have, everything they ever will have, and of the value they've placed on their own life.
But we're speaking of society. Is SBF a physical danger to society? Clearly not. He's not going to rob and murder you if he catches you in the park after sundown. His reputation is destroyed, and from a harm mitigation perspective it should be enough to monitor his economic activity and make sure he isn't in a position to run any more frauds.
If you seek punitive measures, that's all well and good, but it should be done in a way that's equitable and according to a theory of punishment that's applied uniformly. I don't believe that exists, and jailing a non-violent criminal for such a period of time, when extremely violent criminals serve less time and are then allowed to reintegrate into society (often with poor results,) seems both strange and wrong.