this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024

372 points (98.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30028 readers

687 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

All posts must be showerthoughts
The entire showerthought must be in the title
Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
Posts must be original/unique
Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

372

Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 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.

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

(page 2) 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

To clarify, I meant national average. As in, an average American makes 40k a year, white collar crime 1 mil, get 25 years since that's how long it would take an average American to get 1 mil.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FYI, the median personal income for a person working full time, year round is just above $60,000 in the US, so 1 million dollars of crime might only deserve 16 years, 8 months.

JPMorgan Chase has paid out $30,000,000,000 in fines over the last 20 years or so. That means if you apply similar logic to companies, their executive team owes up to 500,000 years in prison collectively, which is only 3,000 years per member of the senior leadership team.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Source on median income pls?

US Census seems to put it at ~42k/year

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just seems like the poor get punished, while the rich don't.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

Well,technically you're wrong.

Punishment is simply the flip on reward. You could say they get "negative punishment" but no one wouldn't mistranslate that shit.

They are simply rewarded is probably better, or shall I say, more accurate...

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 76 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Instead, punishment for ALL crime should be proportional to the perpetrator's annual income. That's how they do it in Finland (and it seems also some ~~other~~ Scandinavian countries), for instance. They have had at least a couple of instances of over $100k speeding tickets, for example. This makes incredibly SOOOO much sense that it will never happen in most capitalist countries.

Some references: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'd like to point out that Finland is not Scandinavian, because they'd want me to

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Finne, Fennoscandia then.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I believe they'd say Nordic

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I have no income.. does that mean I can hold up a bank?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Well that would be income.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Whatever you get from the holdup counts as income, so your fine will just be a percentage of that.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is the embezzler a $7.25 or otherwise minimum wage worker or a well-paid nepo baby?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

He's a tipped employee.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Revenue, not income. Income and profits are too easy to hide.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So if I have a net loss for the year, I’ll get paid to commit crimes?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

I like the way you think, you would do well in the Australian property ~~racket~~ market

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] [email protected] -14 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Punishing people harder has never in human history actually solved a problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Punishing people at all has solved many problems though. The shit they're dealt now are discovery taxes, not punishments.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Punishing people at all has solved many problems though

Examples please.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Um... Just to be clear, you're implying that literally all forms of punishment for any crime are unnecessary and ineffective? Because one problem that was greatly lessened by punishing perpetrators was the more transparent forms of discrimination. If you want to argue that Title VII was useless then... Uh... Good luck.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not sure what Title VII is. I'm saying that non-restorative punishment is basically useless to everything and everyone except the party inflicting it. And it may not even be useful for them (if, for example, they were earnestly following New Testament Christian principles).

I think we would all do well to consider this fact. Punishment in the form of retribution (which is usually what people mean by punishment) is just not effective at solving problems.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not sure what Title VII is.

Yeah fair enough. Change that to the civil rights act.

I'm saying that non-restorative punishment is basically useless to everything and everyone except the party inflicting it.

Then what's your answer to murder? You can't restore a human life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Murder is not too difficult: you lock 'em up on the grounds of protecting society, since this was premeditated violence and they might do it again.

Accidental homicide is where it gets tricky. Obviously someone who runs over a child by accident is going to jail. The usual constructive justification is that this "an expression of society's outrage", or similar. There's truth in that. But the real, underlying, motive is surely to inflict suffering on the perpetrator as they inflicted it on their victim - in this case, completely unintentionally. My point is that it's not constructive, it doesn't solve anything except add misery to misery. And it's hypocrisy, because we all know, deep down, that retaliation is about us, not them, but we won't admit it. I hate hypocrisy.

I once got badly injured in a road accident entirely caused by someone else's gross negligence. There were no witnesses and they got off by brazenly lying about what happened. Did I hate them? Yeah, a bit. But then the lying was rational and I might well have done the same in their place. They wanted to escape punishment, which after all serves no purpose to anyone. Did I even want them to go to jail? Actually, no. I would have accepted a sincere apology and some symbolic act of making amends. A day of community service, perhaps. But our system is not set up like that. I think it's a shame.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

in this case planned murder is tricky. because the person they killed is directly responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths and the government was unwilling to lock them up for everyone's safety.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But a financial criminal does not directly cause anything much, let alone a ton of murders. That's the whole point. It takes lots of other people, all with their own agency, to effect the harm. As for locking them up "for everyone's safety", I would say that that is pure sophistry for a case of someone who sits behind a computer. We will agree to disagree on this whole subject.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Considering with many financial crimes the fine is less than the ill begotten profits, changing the fine from the current “cost of doing business” to an actual punishment is a matter of correcting a perverse incentive.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the profits were ill-begotten then they should be paid back. Usually that's what happens, and it's a constructive form of justice.

But sending people to jail for years is just retribution. It's not a deterrent. If it were, then countries that jail people a lot would have less crime, when in fact the opposite is true. If people advocating JAIL! JAIL! JAIL! were honest with themselves, they would admit that their real purpose is just to make the culprits suffer. Okay, although personally I like to think we can be better than that. In any case, it's not gonna solve anything.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

This thread is about financial fines, not jail time, but regardless, here's the 'The Formula' scene from Fight Club. This is effectively how it works in the real world. The money isn't paid back.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok, rich boi bootlicker.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Unsure if this is sarcasm or not. But in any case it's not a counter-argument.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

It should be proportional to the personal income of whoever committed the crime

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

And if a company is the perpetrator, it might just have to go out of business or be acquired by the government.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Net worth, not income.

All net worth including stocks, property, etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Those sweet, sweet unrealised gains

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Farmers getting a hard time on this policy

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Oh no. My collection or rare mighty beans.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments