It seems like a linear argument isn't valid here. It shouldn't be X years for Y dollars. Once you rob enough to steal away someone's retirement (As cypherpunk

It seems like a linear argument isn't valid here. It shouldn't be X years for Y dollars. Once you rob enough to steal away someone's retirement (As cypherpunks2 alludes elsewhere) it is hard to justify leniency. That said, taken to extremes, it's easy to argue that someone who stole 10 billion deserves worse than someone who stole a million. Dealbreaker looks at the sparse empirical evidence, and their chart suggests a logarithmic function exists. http://dealbreaker.com/2011/09/how-much-time-in-jail-will-a-little-bit-of-insider-trading-cost-you/#more-52404 http://dealbreaker.com/2011/09/how-much-time-in-jail-will-a-... The one problem with it being so clear, is criminals take a cost-benefit analysis, and I'd really like all the white collar criminals to think, "Even if there isn't an obvious victim, I am likely to go bankrupt and spend the rest of my life in jail."