The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Bob McDonnell] First Virginian Governor to be Convicted of a Crime
Posts
Well, on Fox News.
The guy doing the bribing was a building contractor right? Because he bribed the governor he could get government building contracts, despite there being competitors that could do the job better or cheaper. Meaning Virginia spent more money then it should have on government construction and got worse construction as a result.
That extra public money had to come from somewhere. Which means there was less money to go around for genuine public services like education, police, medicaid and other government services(the DMV for example). Meaning those services have less money then they should.
This creates an environment where every contractor either follows suit or loses out on contracts. Meaning the honest businesses lose out and crocked businesses prosper. Making the problem bigger. Subverting the normal rules of capitalism in the process.
There are so many examples in the world of countries and territories that "should" be prosperous, but are not because politicians accept bribes to betray the public interest. For the third world corruption is as much a plague as well a plague.
This guy is the tip of a much bigger problem. 20 years is a good, clear sign that the old ways of doing business in Virginia is over.
whether you're talking about punishment or deterrence or even rehabilitation (lol, but still), civil penalties are likely to be much more effective.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Deterrent can be a purpose of legal punishments, assuming that the person considers getting caught to be fairly likely, and assuming the punishment is serious enough to be considered not worth the risk.
Carpool violation fines here are $400 and you are pretty likely to get caught, because cops are fucking everywhere, and that is why I never ever go into the carpool lane illegally. If the fine was $50, I'd probably do it all the time. If the cops weren't likely to catch you, I might be more likely to do it. But my risk assessment precludes me from risking that amount of loss for that amount of gain.
If government corruption is easily caught but the penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist, then why not do it? If you want to get into the game because you can get crazy bribe moneys, then how motivational is it when the punishment for cheating at the game is just not being allowed to play the game anymore? You're just back where you started.
Like, look at the financial sector. The "punishment" for breaking the law and bankrupting the economy is comparable to squirting the CEO in the face with a water bottle and saying, "No, bad!" Unsurprisingly, that shit keeps happening. And when someone is forced to step down from their cushy position? They just find some other cushy position.
You can fine the ever loving shit out of someone AND send them to jail.
And yeah its not mutually exclusive of fines.
Again, Blagojevich. 14 years.
No; Williams is the CEO of Star Scientific; they manufacture nicotine craving suppressants and 'dietary anti-inflammation' pills. I have no idea what the latter do.
So, it's actually much, much worse than a building contractor. They were using McDonnell to sidestep red tape & have their products become state-backed. At least a building contractor would do their job, take their cut and be done with it - Star Scientific would've dug their tentacles in and becomes a permanent parasite (and, depending on what damage McDonnell did, they still might).
Uh, deterrence of similar crime is a pretty significant purpose of criminal punishment.
pleasepaypreacher.net
All very true but that's not what I was talking about.
Take your car pool example, you didn't need to have jail time to make it unattractive to you to break the law. You just needed it to be a bad idea. But some people are still going to do it no matter what the cost of getting caught (think robbing gas stations for 100 bucks). The only reason for locking them up is going to be rehabilitation and public safety.
So think of a situation where the penalty for using the car pool lane is that you can never drive a car again (and not even legally drive, you just lose the absolute ability to drive), you lose all your assets and then have to pay judgments for the rest of your life. Would time in jail really stop anyone from doing it?
To be fair, while it's a stated intent of criminal punishment, a lot of our justice system is designed so it actually has very little deterrent effect. We might want to use our justice system to deter crime, but we sort of suck at it.
No because that is patently ridiculous. What the hell kind of absurd argument is this?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think some would argue that while deterrence is the intended goal of criminal punishment, jail time and other "harsh" punishments are rarely effective in that regard. Historically speaking, public hangings used to be a thing and now are not. Not because those in power suddenly had a change of heart and realized that hanging someone in the town square is a barbaric and horrible thing to do, but because it wasn't particularly effective at instilling the fear of the state that was its intended purpose. If anything, it just served to showcase to people, who may not have even considered the idea before, that their leaders were barbaric and horrible people who probably didn't deserve to be in power so maybe those revolutionaries over there are on to something. For a more modern example, just look at how prisons are now commonly referred to as Crime College. I think a harsh punishment is necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of his crimes, but I think something along the lines of a massive set of fines along with a lifetime ban on holding elected office, acting as a lobbyist, or having even minor interaction with the political sphere beyond voting would be more appropriate. If you want to restrict his physical freedom, then maybe an extended house arrest.
where you can't leave your 8,000 square foot house with indoor bowling alley, three pools and a 20 seat home theater
truly a punishment fitting of the lowliest scumbags
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
See: US justice system.
Yes, on its own, house arrest is not a particularly harsh penalty. However, if the fines you levy are appropriately substantial, then maybe they can no longer afford the indoor bowling alley.... I'm talking like millions of dollars of fines. I'm sure some creative economist could come up with a way to justify that as damage done by all ripple effects mentioned earlier ITT that corruption causes.
I think there's a missing delta here if you will. We already have crime and punishment but no real baseline except places where the law is completely ineffective (Somalia, Juarez, etc)
Most criminals are stupid and terrible at delaying gratification. They fail the cupcake test every time. If you don't have enough foresight to see bad consequences deterrence doesn't work.
Those of us with a reasonable ability to understand consequences of actions will often not do something criminal due to ethical considerations, but many regulations are not themselves ethical issues. Stealing from the rich might seem not unethical (they'll never miss it!) or cheating on your taxes can be rationalized (I need it!) by normal people. By adding jail time its now not advisable when taking out the moral questions
And then there are highly functional people who lack a moral compass or the normal degree of human empathy. You have to add in consequences for them. And that's where dirty politicians come in.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It seems fairly effective in Virginia, I mean on this list there is only one dude who got tossed in prison in like a hundred years. Deterent seemed to be working prior to smiling Bob Mcdonnel.
Also just because we toss him and his wife in prison doesn't mean we can't fine the shit out of them as well, because we can and most certainly will. MERICA!!!!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Jail time, even country club style, greatly restricts what the connections he's created can do for him. Like you can give him massive fines, force him into bankruptcy etc. And then once all the assets are seized and the debt discharge, boom he's on fox news or working for ALEC. If you throw him in jail for 20 years(even if he only serves 5), he's in jail, and favors, promises etc have an expiration date.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, just to clarify, my opposition to jail time is mostly based in the idea that the McDonnels are too old to be a physical threat and housing prisoners is expensive. They're the criminals, so let them foot the bill for feeding, clothing, sheltering, heating, property taxes, etc. themselves.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean, I am not out in the street for this guy but I still think that it is always important to think about why we, as a society, are doing stuff and I really don't like "jail is for bad people".
Jail should be a tool not a punishment.
It isn't that expensive to house prisoners. Certainly not enough to keep scum like Bob Mcdonnel from having a stay in the iron bar hotel.
I'm sure when he was governnor a lot of young men busted for smoking pot were not given the same courtesy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's not going to have the same effect on everybody. A million dollar fine might be a hassle for McConnell but to a billionaire CEO it will be less than nothing.
You'll get better results from putting white collar criminals in actual prison than veteran hitmen. White collar crime is so often overlooked and poorly prosecuted in the US, and I'll add in corrupt politicians. There are exceptions like Madoff but that's all that he was. Had more white collar criminals or politicians gotten harsher penalties like he did it's possible some of them would be less inclined to do those crimes.
Every penny of that is worth it to punish those who fuck our system of governance.
Like, you want to talk about how silly it is we spend that level of cash to imprison addicts instead of treat them? Cool, totally fine.
Somebody who intentionally campaigned for the public trust and then exploited it for personal gain?
Worth it.
Lean on them until they out someone else.
Then no future in the lobbying industry.
Just regular shitbird no one wants to talk to.
So your figure was a lie?
Also, you surely have multiple examples of people being pardoned for corruption, right?
Yes.
No one would pardon or lighten Mcdonnel's sentence, and who would pay a convicted felon to lobby for them? Come on now, lets at least play in reality.
pleasepaypreacher.net
With the proper connections that'd be impossible for authorities to stop him, all he needs is a phone, computer and people to come to him. Unless you're advocating police following him around 24/7, making it illegal for him to work in any big business industry and keep him from every communication device until his time is served.
No, my figure was an estimate based on the parameters I described. If the parameters change, then obviously the final number will change as well. In this new scenario we would be talking about spending ~$500K to achieve nothing. Also, I never said pardon, but the most obvious example is Nixon/Ford, right? Do criminals never have their sentences reduced after the fact as a result of "good behavior", providing material information to ongoing investigations? I thought that was a thing, but IANAL so I could very easily be wrong.
And I don't think people in prison for Bribery would get much "good behavior" reduction, maybe a year or two at most on a decade long sentence.
pleasepaypreacher.net