On Oct 22, 7:55*pm, RicodJour wrote:
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

Sounds OK by me.