5 ms·

As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth.

josephcsible 5y ago
That violates the principle of equality before the law. What if instead, the fine started at $100 but grew at 5% per day? Then even the biggest companies wouldn't be able to afford to just keep paying it.
- piaste 5y ago
  Equality before the law applies to citizens, not to bank accounts. Take a broader view.
- vincnetas 5y ago
  Well, if you fine certain percent of income, so everyone will be treated equally by law. x% of income where x is same for tiny company or mega corp. So principle of equality is not violated.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    That's incorrect. If you fined some super rich with 90% of their income they could still live a comfortable life . If you fined normal mortals or poor with 90% of their income they would lose their apartment and could not buy enough food anymore.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      True, but as an illustration of why "equal" is not objective the above works. To talk about real equality we first need to define what we mean. And certainly, a percentage will also not deliver equal effect.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  > That violates the principle of equality before the law Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Which brings the wonderful quote by Anatole France that is worth keeping in mind and spreading far and wide: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Indeed, equality before the law really is not a straightforward thing.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    If anything, even a flat percentage does not create equality. If I was fined 30% of my annual income for something, it'd suck, but I'd just take it out of savings. But many lower earners who'd pay much less would struggle with the same. But fines as a percentage would at least be an improvement.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That violates the principle of equality before the law. No, it doesn’t; a fine of N years income or N% of wealth is at least as much equal treatment as a fine of $N. And current law recognizes it, because even though fines are typically stated with a fixed upper limit, which in some cases is low enough to make them ignorable by the rich, within that upper limit, the law already recognizes that equality before the law doesn’t mean “same $ amount for everyone”. E.g., for federal fines, see 18 USC § 3572(a): “In determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider […] (1) the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources; (2) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments would impose; […]”
- kevinob11 5y ago
  I've been thinking about this a lot lately because I have a friend who always discusses equality when we talk about taxes. What makes numbers so equal in the minds of humans? Especially when it comes to fines, taxes, etc.? If we still punished people by cutting off their hands (THANKFULLY WE DON'T - but humor me) would be equal to just cut off any part of the arm longer than 24 inches? No, effect was what made it equal, cut off the hands so you can't use them anymore. The example is gruesome but makes it pleasantly obvious that raw numbers are only equal if we all make the same amount of money and have the same costs in our lives. Since we don't I don't think there is anything equal about fixed amounts of money.
bdowling 5y ago
> Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That would quickly lead to poor individuals and non-profit companies trying to transfer the benefits of their low-cost infractions to others.
Dylan16807 5y ago
If you make sure the fine is some multiple of the damage, including the chance of being caught, then for most situations making it into a transaction would be acceptable.
lelanthran 5y ago
> As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That's a great rationale right up until the point that a court finds the company in contempt of the original judgement[1]. In this case you don't need the penalty to scale - you don't even need the penalty at all - the order most likely says something to the effect of "stop the infringement". [1] The order most probably read like "Pay the fine and stop the infringement". Simply paying the fine doesn't allow you to ignore the second part of the order, and the penalties for contempt of court are enough to sink the company. Just ask Gawker, who went under not because of what they published, but because they ignored a court order that ordered them to stop publishing it.

josephcsible 5y ago

That violates the principle of equality before the law. What if instead, the fine started at $100 but grew at 5% per day? Then even the biggest companies wouldn't be able to afford to just keep paying it.

piaste 5y ago
Equality before the law applies to citizens, not to bank accounts. Take a broader view.
vincnetas 5y ago
Well, if you fine certain percent of income, so everyone will be treated equally by law. x% of income where x is same for tiny company or mega corp. So principle of equality is not violated.
- usr1106 5y ago
  That's incorrect. If you fined some super rich with 90% of their income they could still live a comfortable life . If you fined normal mortals or poor with 90% of their income they would lose their apartment and could not buy enough food anymore.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    True, but as an illustration of why "equal" is not objective the above works. To talk about real equality we first need to define what we mean. And certainly, a percentage will also not deliver equal effect.
pietrovismara 5y ago
> That violates the principle of equality before the law Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Which brings the wonderful quote by Anatole France that is worth keeping in mind and spreading far and wide: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Indeed, equality before the law really is not a straightforward thing.
- vidarh 5y ago
  If anything, even a flat percentage does not create equality. If I was fined 30% of my annual income for something, it'd suck, but I'd just take it out of savings. But many lower earners who'd pay much less would struggle with the same. But fines as a percentage would at least be an improvement.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> That violates the principle of equality before the law. No, it doesn’t; a fine of N years income or N% of wealth is at least as much equal treatment as a fine of $N. And current law recognizes it, because even though fines are typically stated with a fixed upper limit, which in some cases is low enough to make them ignorable by the rich, within that upper limit, the law already recognizes that equality before the law doesn’t mean “same $ amount for everyone”. E.g., for federal fines, see 18 USC § 3572(a): “In determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider […] (1) the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources; (2) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments would impose; […]”
kevinob11 5y ago
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because I have a friend who always discusses equality when we talk about taxes. What makes numbers so equal in the minds of humans? Especially when it comes to fines, taxes, etc.? If we still punished people by cutting off their hands (THANKFULLY WE DON'T - but humor me) would be equal to just cut off any part of the arm longer than 24 inches? No, effect was what made it equal, cut off the hands so you can't use them anymore. The example is gruesome but makes it pleasantly obvious that raw numbers are only equal if we all make the same amount of money and have the same costs in our lives. Since we don't I don't think there is anything equal about fixed amounts of money.

bdowling 5y ago

> Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That would quickly lead to poor individuals and non-profit companies trying to transfer the benefits of their low-cost infractions to others.

Dylan16807 5y ago

If you make sure the fine is some multiple of the damage, including the chance of being caught, then for most situations making it into a transaction would be acceptable.

lelanthran 5y ago

> As always, if a fine is only a fixed amount it becomes just a regular transaction for the rich. Ideally the amount would scale with your size/wealth. That's a great rationale right up until the point that a court finds the company in contempt of the original judgement[1]. In this case you don't need the penalty to scale - you don't even need the penalty at all - the order most likely says something to the effect of "stop the infringement". [1] The order most probably read like "Pay the fine and stop the infringement". Simply paying the fine doesn't allow you to ignore the second part of the order, and the penalties for contempt of court are enough to sink the company. Just ask Gawker, who went under not because of what they published, but because they ignored a court order that ordered them to stop publishing it.