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

    • Chakravanti@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Well,technically you’re wrong.

      Punishment is simply the flip on reward. You could say they get “negative punishment” but no one wouldn’t mistranslate that shit.

      They are simply rewarded is probably better, or shall I say, more accurate…