On Oct 22, 2:36 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

It could be 50 years ago that I first suggested fines proportionate to
income; say, so many weeks' wages, rather than a fixed amount.

Income? How about estimated net worth, and let the defendant prove by
submitting documents that he is worth less. Most would do what the
poor people do, and just shut up and pay.

From Wiki:
Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted
retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is
forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future
social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists,
punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing crimes
according to their severity.

I mean, we're talking about punishing criminals, right? Who's going
to complain that criminals don't deserve punishment? Somebody commits
some financial malfeasance and bankrupts a bunch of people, they
should be permanently bankrupted and given a job working in a soup
kitchen or something. You ruin a life, yours gets ruined. No free
rides, no country club prisons and none of the out in a few years with
most of their ill-gotten gains.

Oh, and counseling is provided free of charge by the Kevorkian
Society.

R