One of the many penalties some criminals face: Lost inheritance
Family patriarch Barron Hilton was already embarrassed by his granddaughter's wild behaviour - notably when her home sex video was leaked on the internet.
But the 79-year-old considered her 23-day sentence last month the last straw. . . . .
People who are disinherited because of criminal activity face an essentially almost impossible road in challenging that decision in court. If you thought that Paris' prison term was already harsh for the type of crime that she had committed, add $60 million to that penalty.
Thanks to Alex Robson for sending this story to me.
Labels: Economics, Freedomnomics
posted by John Lott at 8:58 AM
5 Comments:
I'm suspicious -- the first place I saw that story was the Daily Squib, a satire site after the Onion. It's all over the wire now, but still, it's weird that the same story would show up in fake news the same day.
Two points. This seems like a real news source. But even if it isn't, the basic point that I am making about the types of penalties that those who commit felonies face. The work that I done from when I was at the US Sentencing Commission indicates that there are many different types of penalties that criminals face. Losing one's Inheritance is just one type.
I'm reading the book right now and enjoying it. In fact I just finished the part dealing with the "inequitable" punishment doled out to the rich.
I do have a quibble with the whole notion of counting loss of reputation as part of the punishment. If the foundation of libertarian thinking is something akin to the notion that everyone gets an equal opportunity and we should expect differing results, shouldn't the corollary apply? Equal punishment (or on average 5 days less in the book's example) but different impact? Shouldn't those with more to lose factor that in when deciding upon a path of malfeasance?
Again, I am enjoying the book and find a lot of free-market ideas very intriguing (I've really enjoyed the stuff on elections). But here it seems to me you are having it both ways.
I read about Paris in the mainstream Irish press the other day, they were suggesting her cut legacy was around $20M (far more money than I'll ever have)
I'd been ignoring Paris as just a spoilt little waste of space, however my wife had a different take on it:
She pointed out that the woman has obviously been raised in a fantasy world in which she was not taught right from wrong.
Suddenly she has been landed in the real world and she doesn't have a clue how to function.
Add to that her family cutting her inheritance and she must be facing a real crisis.
She certainly has lost a great deal more than just a spell of freedom and her inheritance.
As my wife pointed out, unless the young woman can quickly learn normal society's rules, and find a long term place for herself in society, then we might be looking at a suicide in the near future.
Keith
This isn't really punishment for her crime though. That punishment was determined by a judge and carried out by the state. This is just an ancillary consequence of her actions and shouldn't be considered when evaluating whether or not the punishment for her crime was/wasn't appropriate.
If Hilton wasn't an heiress and instead was a truck driver from Des Moines who was convicted of a dui, would we consider that he'll be unhirable in his profession (possibly having much more impact on his life than this will have on Hilton's) when evaluating his punishment?
Post a Comment
<< Home