6 ms·

The whole point of those Switzerland-style fines based on wealth are to make sure that Bill Gates is punished the _same_ amount for the same crime, not more. It

The whole point of those Switzerland-style fines based on wealth are to make sure that Bill Gates is punished the _same_ amount for the same crime, not more. It's just using a different measure of "amount of punishment" - in this case something based on proportion of wealth/income rather than a flat amount. That flat amount means a lot less to Bill Gates than someone who has $100 in savings. Having to rely on charities to fix problems in our justice system seems completely backwards to me. That's a workaround, not a solution.

cs02rm0 8y ago
So, if a $100 fine for someone with only $100 to their name is adjusted to punish Bill Gates the same amount... how much do you fine him? Every cent he has to his name? Because if you leave him with anything the punishment isn't the same. And what if he then commits a much more serious offence? I still think the whole concept is so flawed it's a farce.
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  The fine is based on x days of income in the last fiscal year, or perhaps an average over some years. It makes perfect sense.
- evan_ 8y ago
  Maybe the problem is at the low end and you shouldn’t find a person with $100, $100.
- bdhess 8y ago
  To me it seems just as farcical to levy a $100 fine on someone who only has $100. What exactly does that accomplish?
  - briandear 8y ago
    So if a robbery results in a 10 year sentence and a poor person makes $15,000 per year, that means the sentence costs the poor person $150,000, not adjusted for inflation. A rich person who makes $1 million per year would he. Need to serve less than 2 months then right? If we are trying to use this socialist fine system, then that would necessarily result in shorter jail time for rich people because they are being “harmed” more proportionally. These scaled punishments are absurd.
    - shawabawa3 8y ago
      You've got it backwards. "time" is the unit of punishment, as it's more equal than wealth. We agree that both a rich and poor person should serve the same time in prison for the same crime Therefore, for a fine, both a rich and a poor person should pay the same fine relative to their earnings per unit of time. i.e., if the fine is $100 for someone making $15,000/year, it should be $100,000 for someone making $15,000,000/year
      - cs02rm0 8y ago
        That's simple. But what about someone making $150k a year with no assets vs. someone living in a $1.5m property with no job who made $15k last year on $150k of shares? What about someone with $1.5m in shares who made a $15k loss on them last year? Do they get paid instead of fined?
  - cs02rm0 8y ago
    Admin costs is an answer I've heard previously to having a non-zero lower end (i.e. an element of the fine that's not supposed to be punishment/deterrent).

cs02rm0 8y ago

So, if a $100 fine for someone with only $100 to their name is adjusted to punish Bill Gates the same amount... how much do you fine him? Every cent he has to his name? Because if you leave him with anything the punishment isn't the same. And what if he then commits a much more serious offence? I still think the whole concept is so flawed it's a farce.

hvidgaard 8y ago
The fine is based on x days of income in the last fiscal year, or perhaps an average over some years. It makes perfect sense.
evan_ 8y ago
Maybe the problem is at the low end and you shouldn’t find a person with $100, $100.
bdhess 8y ago
To me it seems just as farcical to levy a $100 fine on someone who only has $100. What exactly does that accomplish?
- briandear 8y ago
  So if a robbery results in a 10 year sentence and a poor person makes $15,000 per year, that means the sentence costs the poor person $150,000, not adjusted for inflation. A rich person who makes $1 million per year would he. Need to serve less than 2 months then right? If we are trying to use this socialist fine system, then that would necessarily result in shorter jail time for rich people because they are being “harmed” more proportionally. These scaled punishments are absurd.
  - shawabawa3 8y ago
    You've got it backwards. "time" is the unit of punishment, as it's more equal than wealth. We agree that both a rich and poor person should serve the same time in prison for the same crime Therefore, for a fine, both a rich and a poor person should pay the same fine relative to their earnings per unit of time. i.e., if the fine is $100 for someone making $15,000/year, it should be $100,000 for someone making $15,000,000/year
    - cs02rm0 8y ago
      That's simple. But what about someone making $150k a year with no assets vs. someone living in a $1.5m property with no job who made $15k last year on $150k of shares? What about someone with $1.5m in shares who made a $15k loss on them last year? Do they get paid instead of fined?
- cs02rm0 8y ago
  Admin costs is an answer I've heard previously to having a non-zero lower end (i.e. an element of the fine that's not supposed to be punishment/deterrent).