Who deserves the harsher punishment?

[dead0man]

I'm with Smid as well.  Violence (even just the threat of it) is worse than trickery.

[dead0man]

Libertarian minimalist nonsense.  Physical violence isn't so clearly seperate from the rest of human relations by a iron curtain.  Suppose the money stolen by Person B prevented the access of one of his clients to a life-saving operation, actually casuing death.  This is why a utilitarian approach is necessary, and the crime of Person B is more egregious.

So how much is murder worth?

I'm kind of amazed and certainly saddened that so many people here are willing to overlook the threat of violence, especially in a situation where that threat often turns to action.  Is it because you guys like the (presumably) rich investors and dislike the poor guy working behind the counter at the 7-11?

[dead0man]

I'm kind of amazed and certainly saddened that so many people here are willing to overlook the threat of violence, especially in a situation where that threat often turns to action.  Is it because you guys like the (presumably) rich investors and dislike the poor guy working behind the counter at the 7-11?

We aren't talking about all situations, but the one described above, so it's irrelevant to bring up "often turns to". My decision, most likely others that feel the same, consider the gravity of scenario B to be worse than a robbery without physical harm.

Yet you said nothing to jokerman who made an even bigger leap than I did.

From the position of the clerk, he knows these kinds of robberies often end poorly for the guy behind the counter.  It didn't happen in our fantasy scenerio, but our clerk did excist and his fear did happen. 

Is a noose hanging on a black coworkers office door worse than stealing $10 in office supplies?  I think it is, you guys don't seem to.

[dead0man]

Is a noose hanging on a black coworkers office door worse than stealing $10 in office supplies?  I think it is, you guys don't seem to.

Anybody going to touch this?

[dead0man]

Criminal B's crime is not localized - it has far reaching effects. Stealing millions of dollars affects the world far more than stealing $10 of office supplies. First off it will harm multiple companies and individuals, potentially putting many people out of work and into the poorhouse. How many families will that damage or destroy? How many Criminal A's will be created because they lost their money to the scam and become desperate? How many of those new A's will actually end up killing the clerk? Is the harm done to Criminal B's victims any less real because a gun wasn't involved? As I see it, Criminal B will likely have done more harm in the grand scheme of things than Criminal A, so his punishment should be more severe. It certainly shouldn't be any less.

Aye.  That may have done it.  I'm going to think on it a bit, but I'm pretty sure your "greater bad" argument may have won me over.