Yes. It’s just money, which is why I want non-imprisonment punishments for any of those scenarios, unless prison would usefully achieve some remedial goal like making your car theft example less likely to recur because the person is locked up.
There are lots of better ways to punish this kind of crime, generally. Imprisonment doesn’t get my money back, is expensive for the taxpayer, is at least as likely to make the criminal more prone to reoffend as less prone to that given how typical American prisons work, and isn’t necessary for either retributive or deterrent purposes.
Their criminal record, any court order to pay compensatory and punitive damages, any loss of their own property or bankruptcy that results, and so on would be plenty of retribution and deterrence.
Now, if they try to flee from justice or violate court orders or hide assets in ways that imprisonment would usefully interfere with, that’s a different question. Prison makes sense in many cases, but merely making the victims of a nonviolent monetary crime feel satisfied is not inherently such a case.
I’m sorry to hear your grandma got targeted by con artists, but it’s a rare scam where imprisoning the few individuals who are actually within reach of arrest and who generate enough usable evidence to convict them will meaningfully protect the scam’s potential future victims. In those rare cases, imprisonment might well be appropriate.
I don’t see signs of that in the case we are discussing. This crime was a crime of opportunity against a large corporation causing only monetary harm to the corporation in the form of inconvenience and time wasted for its employees to clean up the mess, but not ruining anyone or anything beyond coworkers’ account profile settings, not even anyone’s paychecks.
Certainly this case was worthy of punishment, definitely worthy of the felony criminal conviction and potential damages if the employer wants to sue or if this criminal statute lets the court include that in the sentence, likely worthy of temporarily or permanently keeping him away from employer computer systems beyond something heavily locked down (e.g. point of sale screen), and maybe also temporarily or permanently away from computers or the internet in general if that won’t unreasonably prevent him from having some viable way of making a living, but not worthy of imprisonment without more reason for that.
I haven't even really been discussing the case from the OP. I'm more so just surprised at the number of comments (like yourself) that appear to be expressing sympathy for financial or white collar criminals.
I suppose it's a philosophical difference...I just hope that you appreciate how extreme the position is. The amount of fraud in this country is disturbing and I don't think it is compassionate/kind at all to keep these people out of prison while most people are struggling to make an honest living. It creates a moral hazard.
I’m not expressing sympathy for financial or white-collar criminals. They deserve lots of scorn and punishment, including more criminal convictions, fines, restitution, court orders, and court oversight than they typically get. My position is not what you seem to think it is, which would indeed be an extreme position.
I just don’t equate punishment with prison. I realize that the best kind of punishment isn’t always having the taxpayers pay for years of that person’s food and lodging, depriving their innocent relatives and colleagues of the emotional/family presence and professional labor/earnings of someone who may have been very noncriminally important to them in many ways outside of prison, introducing them to the many gangs and violent criminals that populate US prisons while simultaneously subjecting them to a traumatic change in life circumstances, turning them into low-paid involuntary workers for wealthy capitalists to profit from as is done in many privately run prisons pursuant to the exception in the Thirteenth Amendment, and so on.
Nothing I said is true only for the financial or white-collar criminal. In particular, poor brown or Black drug users are way over-imprisoned and that shouldn’t happen either. I’d actually rather harsher punishments for the financial white-collar criminal than for the poor minority drug addicted, but in most cases neither should involve prison.
Prison is clearly necessary in some cases and arguably necessary in others, but it shouldn’t be our first thought of how to punish a criminal - whether white-collar or blue-collar - especially not the way typical US prisons work.
There are lots of better ways to punish this kind of crime, generally. Imprisonment doesn’t get my money back, is expensive for the taxpayer, is at least as likely to make the criminal more prone to reoffend as less prone to that given how typical American prisons work, and isn’t necessary for either retributive or deterrent purposes.
Their criminal record, any court order to pay compensatory and punitive damages, any loss of their own property or bankruptcy that results, and so on would be plenty of retribution and deterrence.
Now, if they try to flee from justice or violate court orders or hide assets in ways that imprisonment would usefully interfere with, that’s a different question. Prison makes sense in many cases, but merely making the victims of a nonviolent monetary crime feel satisfied is not inherently such a case.