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

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    3 days ago

    Make fines for companies breaking the law to make money a percentage of the profit generated from it, with a base percentage of 125%.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 days ago

      but that would disincentivize their activities. wow, very anti-business bro, don’t be such a pinko

      • lseif@sopuli.xyz
        5·
        3 days ago

        exactly. not so much of a ‘free’ market when businesses cant even break the law

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      3 days ago

      with a base percentage of 125%.

      Given that that is greater than 100%, what would you say happens if they don’t have the resources to pay that extra 25%?

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        4·
        3 days ago

        I would assume bankruptcy if you couldnt pay it off.

        If someone steals a TV from Walmart they don’t get to keep the TV and pay $100 dollars in fines. It would make sense they have to pay 100% of the TV if it isn’t confiscated back, and then “damages” on top of it.

        That’s the idea I got from reading what they said