374
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I.e. 100k embezzlement gets you 2.5 years

Edit.

I meant this to be the national average income (40k if I round up for cleaner math), not based on the individuals income, it's a static formula.

Crime$$$/nat. Avg. Income = years in jail

100k/40k = 2.5 years

1mill /40k=25 years

My thoughts were, if they want to commit more crime but lessen the risk, they just need to increase the average national income. Hell, I'd throw them a bone adjust their sentences for income inflation.

Ie

Homie gets two years (80k/40k=2), but the next year average national income jumps to 80k (because it turns out actually properly threatening these fuckers actually works, who'd've figured?), that homies sentence gets cut to a year he gets out on time served. Call it an incentive.

Anyways, more than anything, I'm sorry my high in the shower thought got as much attention as it did.

Good night

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago*

I think it should be all the money you made from the crime + punitive damages based on a percentage of the total amount of money you stole/defrauded.

It just needs to be completely unprofitable to break the law, in any circumstance (it doesn't necessarily have to be a financial crime). If the fines take away less money than you make continuing to break the law, that's just the cost of business. The punishment need to actually deter the crime by making such crimes unprofitable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •