So we accept differential treatment based on one's having kids? What happens if the better punishment from the kid's perspective is actually worse for the parent?
I think that courts do take individual circumstances into account and must be allowed to do so. I don't deny at all that it can be unfair, but I don't think inflexible rules like three-strikes sort of laws or draconian minimum sentences that take away the judge's wiggle room are any fairer.
A prison sentence for a parent is not just hurting the kid more, it's also much harsher on the parent. You're not only taking away their freedom, you're also taking away their kid. In effect, that is differential treatment as well. But I will admit that I'm not comfortable with this line of argument either.
The case of auto makers breaching environmental rules is much simpler though as a large fine that does not cause factory and dealership closures or price hikes is better in every imaginable way.
>I don't deny at all that it can be unfair, but I don't think inflexible rules like three-strikes sort of laws or draconian minimum sentences that take away the judge's wiggle room are any fairer.
So what happens when punishments begin to show an even stronger racial bias. For example, the argument that a white offender is safe to release because they are more likely to get a job which reduces their chance of committing a crime. Never mind that they are more likely to get a job because of institutionalize racism in our society.
>You're not only taking away their freedom, you're also taking away their kid.
A prison sentence for a rich individual hurts their income far more (and they are less likely to engage in crime once they are out due to higher education and better ability to find employment), so rich people should only be given a fraction of the sentence... the conclusion using this line of reasoning do seem to end poorly.
>The case of auto makers breaching environmental rules is much simpler though as a large fine
Except it attached a price tag to breaking the law, which fundamentally changes how businesses approach the law. Imagine what would happen if every crime was fined a fraction of what it earned you.
>So what happens when punishments begin to show an even stronger racial bias. For example, the argument that a white offender is safe to release because they are more likely to get a job which reduces their chance of committing a crime
That is but one possible argument of many. A judge could also make the case that locking up hugely more members of one racial group than of others destroys the social fabric of society, creates even more crime in the next generation and is ultimately worse for everyone.
So yes, you could ask many questions of that sort and you are right that giving judges room to weigh individual circumstances can go both ways. In my opinion, not having that wiggle room is cruel and relies on a completely unjustified confidence in the ability of law makers to forsee all the situations that might come up.
>Except it attached a price tag to breaking the law, which fundamentally changes how businesses approach the law. Imagine what would happen if every crime was fined a fraction of what it earned you.
Banning an auto maker for 12 months in one particular country has a price tag too. Every punishment of a corporation can be distilled down to a mere price tag. Whether or not the price tag of a ban is higher or lower than any fine depends on the amount fined.
There are many problems with outright bans. It is a very inflexible and crude tool. It does not allow for a gradual and measured punishment that fits the extent of the violation. It does not bring money into government coffers or into victims pockets. It cannot be applied equally to every company in the same way if at all. You cannot simply shut down banks, utilities or OS vendors without destroying the entire economy. We do need some degree of pragmatism that limits collateral damage.
Also, we have to acknowledge that corporations are not people after all. The corporation doesn't take the decision to violate some law. Executives do. So if you want to go beyond a price tag for certain kinds of violations then you need criminal prosecution of individual executives on top of fines.
My argument is that you shouldn't. Time in prison should be equal, regardless if you are a poor homeless guy who committed the crime or a filthy rich mutual fund manager whose fund will lose massive amounts of value.
