Showerthoughts

29964 readers

545 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

372

Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (self.showerthoughts)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Lupo to c/showerthoughts

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days 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.

[–] JubilantJaguar -1 points 4 days 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 4 days 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.

[–] JubilantJaguar 1 points 4 days 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 4 days 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.

[–] JubilantJaguar 1 points 4 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Wrong person mate. Unless you meant to completely change the context of the conversation.

Neither of us were talking about financial crimes. I was very explicitly countering your narrative that planned murders are easy to decree as a danger to society vs accidental; and therefore somehow less ambiguous/ simpler.