3 ms·
Well no, the punishment should fit the crime. It's just that punishing a poor person by taking $1000 could kill them, and punishing a rich person by taking $100
by creata 6y ago
Well no, the punishment should fit the crime. It's just that punishing a poor person by taking $1000 could kill them, and punishing a rich person by taking $1000 is barely even a punishment.
- ZephyrBlu 6y agoThe punishment is $1000. 2nd order consequences, while possibly serious, aren't part of the punishment.
- creata 6y agoThat's the same as tying the consequences a person faces for a crime to their wealth (given how predictable the severity of these "2nd order consequences" are!) and that is, to me, terribly unjust.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago> That's the same as tying the consequences a person faces for a crime to their wealth (given how predictable the severity of these "2nd order consequences" are!) I would actually say it's the opposite. If you punish everyone with the same fine, their wealth is divorced from the punishment. If you punish each person depending on their wealth, the punishment is directly proportional to their wealth. In saying that, very poor people are definitely disproportionately affected by equal punishment. Though you could also say poor people would be more motivated to commit crimes if the punishment was proportional, since they stand to gain a lot more than a rich person. I don't think there's a right answer.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThese "2nd order consequences" are the whole point of punishment. Money is only means of delivering them.
- RhysU 6y agoGiven progressive taxation, it already takes higher income persons more pre-tax income to come up with $1000 post-tax.