Firstly, fuck this person and everyone else involved.
Secondly, she was a supportive witness that likely helped to get other convictions. She might be the reason that any money is recovered.
Thirdly, if the sentence for a crime gets too high, murdering the people who can rat you out becomes the best strategy. Dead people don’t take the stand. It’s why certain awful crimes, like assaulting children, seem to have too light of a sentence.
It wouldn’t seem like too light of a sentence if other relatively minor crimes didn’t put poor people in prison for way longer. The solution is to reduce sentences for minor, especially victimless crimes to be in line with these, not the other way around.
I’m sure you have statistics to back up your third point, and wouldn’t make such an extraordinary claim without the evidence to back it up… Care to provide?
Not sure why you’re being down voted, it’s a fair question, and I don’t have a specific study to link to.
I just have anecdotes from working with criminals, and game theory.
If something will add X% to your time in prison, but has a Y% chance of preventing you from being convicted in the first place, there are numbers where it makes sense to risk it.
Granted, it’s much more likely in a single-victim sex-crime scenario than a fraud case that leaves behind kilometer-long paper trails
Firstly, fuck this person and everyone else involved.
Secondly, she was a supportive witness that likely helped to get other convictions. She might be the reason that any money is recovered.
Thirdly, if the sentence for a crime gets too high, murdering the people who can rat you out becomes the best strategy. Dead people don’t take the stand. It’s why certain awful crimes, like assaulting children, seem to have too light of a sentence.
It wouldn’t seem like too light of a sentence if other relatively minor crimes didn’t put poor people in prison for way longer. The solution is to reduce sentences for minor, especially victimless crimes to be in line with these, not the other way around.
That third paragraph is total bullshit, did you read it properly? it’s two years… Murder in the US is most likely a life sentence…
I’m sure you have statistics to back up your third point, and wouldn’t make such an extraordinary claim without the evidence to back it up… Care to provide?
Not sure why you’re being down voted, it’s a fair question, and I don’t have a specific study to link to.
I just have anecdotes from working with criminals, and game theory.
If something will add X% to your time in prison, but has a Y% chance of preventing you from being convicted in the first place, there are numbers where it makes sense to risk it.
Granted, it’s much more likely in a single-victim sex-crime scenario than a fraud case that leaves behind kilometer-long paper trails
I’m no expert, but I would think that you are massively oversimplifying the situation there…