In our perception, fraudsters are seen as irredeemable, yet they are fundamentally different from violent criminals. Individuals should be held accountable for their actions, but that responsibility should not be indefinitely extended. We cannot assume that every misfortune a victim suffers after being defrauded is the sole responsibility of the fraudster, nor can we completely sever the connection between the consequences and the perpetrator. The liability borne by the offender should be calculated as a median value between the best and worst possible impacts.
Furthermore, prisons must be categorized into two types: violent and non-violent. Violent offenders should not be incarcerated with non-violent ones, as these are two distinct concepts—direct versus indirect harm. While some may argue that indirect harm is equivalent to violence, that is often a result of conjecture. In reality, the impacts of these actions vary in weight and should not be judged based on speculation.
Regarding the issue of bribing jurors, what if we use AI to assist in verdicts? People may fear AI bias, but what if the database and computational logic are made public? If everyone can correct errors and demand public responses from the government, AI becomes a tool for accountability. This can even be applied to network management. I believe network surveillance is necessary, but the review of monitored content must be public, justified, and conducted under the scrutiny of the public eye. The fastest way to solve problems is to trace the source of information and hold individuals responsible for their behavior.
