this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
373 points (98.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30029 readers
624 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

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. 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.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
373
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Lupo@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
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.

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 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.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.