It is said that human life can not be valued in money.
In view of that, one may wonder why financial crimes may make more severe punishment than killing anyone. Now, this may often be due in practice to the fact that the right in the individual case, where someone killed someone, considers there are attenuating circumstances. Murder is fine, it is thought if no attenuating circumstances exist, give the strictest punishment of the law. But even though the punishment for economic crime does not exceed the punishment of the most profane murders, one can wonder why they even come close to the public-accepted “truth”, which reads: “a human life can not be valued in money” (implicitly that what would be worth the price of a human life, in money, would it be too low)?
The most reasonable explanation I can imagine that the punishment for economic crime often comes close to, and sometimes exceeds, the penalty for murder / drool is that the penalty rates are determined on the basis of consequential considerations. I guess experience has shown that if you punish murder / dull harder than you do today, the murder / drop rate is not further reduced as a result of it.
I assume that you have already reached a penalty for murder / drool that optimally discourages people from murder / drool. If you were to raise the murder / punishment penalty now, the murder / drop would not be less; it would only be that killer / killer may spend more time in prison and probably suffer more because of it. Unless the kinsmen were killed, happiness / suffering impairments (knowing that the perpetrator is in prison), all in all, in parity with the perpetrator’s suffering from imprisonment, would be a society’s unnecessary amount of suffering for the perpetrator’s part.
The question of the penalty rate depends more on whether or not you feel that a murder condemnation is a good thing. To think that there would be something good, in itself, that an “evil” person suffers, I think is premature. Often, things are beyond the will of a person’s willful control, the type of “a busy childhood”, in combination with unfortunate circumstances that make a human being a murderer.
Although there are murderers who had a good childhood and who did not end up in difficult circumstances, I think it’s difficult to distinguish these from other killers and say: they could have refrained from killing.
I do not think that one of the people who wants to “lock the killer and throw the key” fully knows all the factors that are behind the murder it is about. It is easy to condemn the perpetrator / woman when not in the “details” in case it is (as it is).
But that about it; why are convictors then convicted of punishment that is often in parity with what killers / killers are convicted of? Is it perhaps that experience has shown that the really serious economic crimes actually become less when scaring people from them with many years of imprisonment (rather than with a few months in prison or less)?
I find it very likely. Firstly, large-scale economic crimes (type of theft or fraud involving more than SEK million or more to the offender) must rationally often be smarter to commit than (in many cases) murder, which (in many cases) does not bring anything else perhaps “revenge” or any other sick form of satisfaction that hardly has any greater value in the long run. Secondly, conscientiously, economic crime is not at all as stressful for the offender as murder / drool is. Thirdly, they are not socially condemned as hard as murder / rape is condemned.
Consequently, it seems to me that it is obvious that in many cases it may be justified to judge a large-scale fraudster for a longer prison sentence than a killer. The consequences of doing so will surely be often better than the consequences would be if you would do the opposite.
Conclusion: The relatively large similarity between the punishment of economic crime and the crimes and the punishment of murder and death, and that the former may sometimes exceed the latter, depends (in whole or inevitably) on the consequential consequences of the legislators, and not that the legislators would have considered A sum of money, only large enough, has a value of approximately the same order of magnitude as, or greater than, the value of a human life.
Finally, maybe most importantly – and definitely a lot overlooked (!):
It is fully possible to save many human lives with eg. one million crowns, for example donates a million kronor to adequate types of life-saving activities. Should not theft of one million crowns, from a person who just intended to donate that million to such life-saving activities (followed by the thief raising all the money and not ever being able to pay any damages that almost will rise in a million) may well be judged as a coarser crime than murder of a single human being, when such an economic crime results in more people dying – who would not otherwise have died – than a murder of a single human being causes people die that otherwise would not have died?
In that case, my conclusion is that you should not really be upset that bigwins can get more severe punishment than killer / killer. In fact, common people generally donate a lot of money to life-saving activities. A big wanderer probably has not (except a rare Raskolnikov maybe) the morale of even “thinking about doing it”. A major fraud, which involves turning ordinary people into millions and then type party / dancers / sex buyers up to the millions, may well make the world worse than a “handsome murder with ax”.
In view of all of the above, is it really so unreasonable that gross economic crime can punish parity with (and sometimes exceeding) the punishment for some murder?