3 ms·
To me it seems just as farcical to levy a $100 fine on someone who only has $100. What exactly does that accomplish?
by 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 agoSo 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 agoYou'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 agoThat'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 agoAdmin 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).