By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
firebush03 on 04 December 2024
Edit Thread
The_Yoda said:
firebush03 said:

(i) "unfairly punished saint" Never said he was a "saint", my belief is mercy and rehabilitation is far better than vengence and punishment. In fact, an overwhelming consensus of researchers have reached the conclusion that mercy is far more effective in deterring crime than any punitive measures...so he could be a saint, or a devil. He should be treated with some level of mercy, as do all people. Everybody gets so fixated on serving justice for the victim...but why not to instigater? Why are they not worthy of sympathy?

(ii) You literally are just wrong about how much Gary got away with: It was around $320k over the seven years of operation. The business he was running accumulated millions, but Gary personally only recieve a few hundred thousand...which is not good. Of course it's not good, but why does he need to pay Nintendo $14mil in return for taking $300k? Nintendo is a massive company, and $300k is nothing to them. Not even $15mil is a lot to Nintendo, they literally accumulate billions in revenue each yeah.

Also, why should an individual be expected to pay off all the damages done to a massive corporation? It's like if a child broke a $1,000 vase, and the parents demanded $140,000 in response. This doesn't seem just to me. :/ There's a power imbalance here, so I feel it'd make the most sense in the punishment wasn't "an eye for an eye", but scaled so as to accomodate for this imbalance. Why am I wrong for thinking this?

While I understand where you are coming from, let me put it like this. If we are talking about say losing 20% of what you profited and that is only if you are caught and convicted then you, by stealing, you are looking at a guaranteed 80% to possibly 100% profit from someone else's work.  That sounds like incentive to me not a deterrent.

If anything maybe it should be an eye for an eye.  I will agree that 2 eyes for an eye (like your vase example) may be a bit much.

hmmmm.....I would need to think on this. My gut instinct says that yeah, you've got a point, it would only make sense that the instigator pay what they got away with...but if that person already spent the money, however, then we're stuck with a tricky situation. If this is $10mil? Then the person is pretty much ruined, which is a situation I would like to avoid...idk.

Last edited by firebush03 - on 04 December 2024