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

  • snek_boi@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    19 days ago

    I see many down-votes. I assume these are the positions people are having (please correct me if I’m wrong or mischaracterizing):

    • JubilantJaguar: There is no evidence for harsher punishments having an effect any more than moderate punishments. I even go as far as saying that punishment at all is not beneficial.
    • Comments critical of JubilantJaguar: How can you say that punishment doesn’t work when rich criminals basically can go home for free after committing their crimes? How can you say that punishment doesn’t work when domestic abuse used to be widespread?

    While looking for the middle ground or a compromise can be seen as absurd, the evidence seems to support parts of both of these stances. For example, moderate punishment has been shown to reduce crime much more than harsh crime.

    A simple example is how many countries around the world no longer execute people in public, if at all, as a form of punishment. For the vast majority of those countries, violent crime has been reduced drastically. In the light of these two facts (less executions and less violent crime), is it really tenable to argue that “harsher punishments result in less crime”? What is actually causing crime to be deterred?

    Some people have thought long and hard about this problem, and we now have the evidence to understand what drives crime down. Here’s one such person and their summary of their findings: “An effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons is critical to sustainable reductions in lethal violence” (https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Homicide-Dispatch_1_EN.pdf)

    I know lethal violence is different to non-violent crime, such as wage theft. However, imagine a CEO making the decision to steal wages. Now imagine a society with “an effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons”. Are those two compatible? Would that CEO really go home free in a society with those characteristics?

    I assume there is an impulse to say that capitalism leads to classes of people who are treated fundamentally differently. However, capitalism is not the only force that shapes the world. Democracy is also incredibly powerful. They are two different vectors, two different carts pulling societies around the world in different directions. Without democracy as a counterweight, we wouldn’t have the kinds of protections, rights, and guarantees that so many of us have. Are we ready to deny the legacy of democracy by insisting that we cannot remotely bring justice to wealthy criminals? Are we ready to deny the democratic impulses that so many of us have?