Not if 100 companies did it and they all got away.

This is to teach a lesson because you cannot prosecute all thieves.

Yale Law Journal actually writes about this, the goal is to deter crime because in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place.

▲

vlovich123 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

If in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place, then what is the lesson being taught? Doesn't that just create a moral hazard where you "randomly" choose who to penalize?

▲

jdkee 7 days ago | parent [-]

It's about sending a message.

▲

vlovich123 7 days ago | parent [-]

The message being you’ll likely get away with it?

▲

npunt 7 days ago | parent [-]

They're setting up a pretty simple EV calc:

(Probability of not getting away with it) 0.01 * (Cost if caught) 1000 = 10x (Expected Cost) = not worth it

	▲	wizzwizz4 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		The EV calculation completely goes away if you add a layer of limited liability corporation.

▲

tpmoney 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if the goal is to deter crime, we still have a principle of proportionate punishment. We don't cut people's hands of for petty theft, and we don't execute people for exceeding the speed limit even though both should be pretty effective deterrents.