5 ms·

I find this principle useful - that a fine is just permission slip for people who can afford it. But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these co

I find this principle useful - that a fine is just permission slip for people who can afford it. But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime. So in that case, it's an appropriate solution to fine a large multiple of the total clean-up cost plus damages. The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are. Separately, fines which rise in proportional to wealth can work in a progressive way, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm

eropple 6y ago
> The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are. The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Fictional sums of money, sums that may be less than likely to ever really be paid, are more easily reckoned with than jail time.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Still not a great system unfortunately. Time based punishments still disproportionately punish the poor who have less of it. Suffering based punishments hurt everyone equally, they don’t waste a person’s time they could be contributing something positive to the world and can be scaled to fit the crime. One hell of a deterrent too.
  - eropple 6y ago
    Entirely true. There are crimes, particularly ones against the body politic, where it a reasonable disincentive on top of the reparative justice of paying for cleanup, though. Reparations are still important--but those reparations will just not raise enough of a threat to prevent it from being done again. Adding some blood is really the only option. Because, candidly, the poor aren't dumping toxic waste in factory quantities.
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    Suffering-based punishments disproportionately punish the chronically unhappy, who have less non-suffering.
  - oauea 6y ago
    Wait, are you advocating torture?
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Sorta? I say this only speaking for myself. Given the option between a jail or prison sentence and receiving corporeal punishment I would take the latter always. I draw the line at anything that causes permanent harm or actual torture (which is an "I know it when I see it kinda thing.") Things that would be absolutely miserable but I would do. * Physical exertion like having to run suicides. * Being forced to stand in an uncomfortable position hours. * Being belted/caned/shocked so many times. * Forced labor.
  - learnstats2 6y ago
    > One hell of a deterrent too. Psychology says no.
insert_coin 6y ago
> But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime. Stealing is also an economic crime then, as they are stealing it because they cannot financially afford it and no one should go to jail but only pay a fine. Of course not, the reason might be economic but the crime is against much more than the economy and the punishment should be even greater still. Fines do not even register.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  >Stealing is also an economic crime then... no one should go to jail I completely agree?

eropple 6y ago

> The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are. The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Fictional sums of money, sums that may be less than likely to ever really be paid, are more easily reckoned with than jail time.

Spivak 6y ago
Still not a great system unfortunately. Time based punishments still disproportionately punish the poor who have less of it. Suffering based punishments hurt everyone equally, they don’t waste a person’s time they could be contributing something positive to the world and can be scaled to fit the crime. One hell of a deterrent too.
- eropple 6y ago
  Entirely true. There are crimes, particularly ones against the body politic, where it a reasonable disincentive on top of the reparative justice of paying for cleanup, though. Reparations are still important--but those reparations will just not raise enough of a threat to prevent it from being done again. Adding some blood is really the only option. Because, candidly, the poor aren't dumping toxic waste in factory quantities.
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  Suffering-based punishments disproportionately punish the chronically unhappy, who have less non-suffering.
- oauea 6y ago
  Wait, are you advocating torture?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Sorta? I say this only speaking for myself. Given the option between a jail or prison sentence and receiving corporeal punishment I would take the latter always. I draw the line at anything that causes permanent harm or actual torture (which is an "I know it when I see it kinda thing.") Things that would be absolutely miserable but I would do. * Physical exertion like having to run suicides. * Being forced to stand in an uncomfortable position hours. * Being belted/caned/shocked so many times. * Forced labor.
- learnstats2 6y ago
  > One hell of a deterrent too. Psychology says no.

insert_coin 6y ago

> But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime. Stealing is also an economic crime then, as they are stealing it because they cannot financially afford it and no one should go to jail but only pay a fine. Of course not, the reason might be economic but the crime is against much more than the economy and the punishment should be even greater still. Fines do not even register.

learnstats2 6y ago
>Stealing is also an economic crime then... no one should go to jail I completely agree?