”If the punishment for a crime is a fine, the law was written against the lower classes.”
But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime.
So in that case, it's an appropriate solution to fine a large multiple of the total clean-up cost plus damages. The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are.
Separately, fines which rise in proportional to wealth can work in a progressive way, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm
Stealing is also an economic crime then, as they are stealing it because they cannot financially afford it and no one should go to jail but only pay a fine.
Of course not, the reason might be economic but the crime is against much more than the economy and the punishment should be even greater still. Fines do not even register.
I completely agree?
The only thing the sufficiently rich can't call-and-raise you on is time. Fictional sums of money, sums that may be less than likely to ever really be paid, are more easily reckoned with than jail time.
Suffering based punishments hurt everyone equally, they don’t waste a person’s time they could be contributing something positive to the world and can be scaled to fit the crime. One hell of a deterrent too.
Because, candidly, the poor aren't dumping toxic waste in factory quantities.
Psychology says no.
Things that would be absolutely miserable but I would do.
* Physical exertion like having to run suicides.
* Being forced to stand in an uncomfortable position hours.
* Being belted/caned/shocked so many times.
* Forced labor.
In the US, especially during this new gilded age, I'd probably change that to be a percentage of total wealth or a percentage of annual income, whichever is larger.