Paying back a victim, or "making them whole" is part of required restitution, but it's not adequate as a deterrence. If all I have to do is pay back my victims, there's very little disincentive to keep trying my schemes until I "win."

Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.

>Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.

I don't believe that is correct. In fact there's pretty good research to suggest that custodial sentences inrcease recidivism. This does not really apply to the SBF case, but I shall elaborate for the general case.

There are far more burglars in their 20's than in their 50's. The predominant characteristic amongst people over the age of 50 being convicted of burglary is previous jail time for burglary.

Research has shown the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail, and to a lesser extent gaining a criminal record. People are far more often criminals by circumstance than by nature.

> Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible

The goals of penal sanctions are “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation” [1].

Bankman-Fried is a sociopath. He isn’t going to be rehabilitated, his continuing pursuit of a pardon proves that. The benefits in jailing him are mainly in the first three: retribution, deterrence and incapacitation.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB1...