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
It should be proportional to the personal income of whoever committed the crime
Net worth, not income.
All net worth including stocks, property, etc.
Oh no. My collection or rare mighty beans.
Farmers getting a hard time on this policy
How would debt play into this? Would that be factored as a discount on the time served or increase it?
Farmers regularly drive around in multimillions worth of vehicles so they are definitely on that hook
And if a company is the perpetrator, it might just have to go out of business or be acquired by the government.
Similar to what I mentioned here, assuming that the punishment is a fine, what happens if that person simply gets their fine payed for by someone else? They could artificially lower their income, and pay their fine through a proxy.
Poor person commits crime: “Life in prison”
Rich person commits same crime: “One day in prison”
Excellent plan. Even worse than the current system. You’re a genius.
That’s inversely proportional
I have no idea how you managed to get that entirely backwards.