Hacker News Reader

Comment by amcoastal | Hacker News Reader

I feel like everyone knows why the line is drawn at such a value. So people like us can't afford to commit crimes, but the rich can.

View on HN

In many cases the amounts were written into the law so long ago that money was worth maybe 20x as much, or more.

And that's why we really need to start assigning equations rather than static amounts in bills

It's not exactly that, but in Belgium penalties written in law are an amount that is multiplied by a factor that is regularly updated.

It went from 5.5 to 6 in 2011, then to 8 in 2017 and is still there AFAIK. It seems a bit haphazardly managed to me, but it's something.

Alternatively we could maintain a stable currency people can rely on as a store of value.

My favorite example of such is https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/.

$20 doesn't buy as much today as it did in 1800. :-)

$20 doesn't buy as much as it did in 2020, either...

Compared to the purchasing power difference between 1800 and 2021, a dollar buys (almost) exactly as much in 2021 as it did in 2020. ("Almost" in parentheses, because at any reasonable precision, the 20/21 difference will probably round to zero.)

When they're big enough, differences of quantity become differences of quality.

Inflation was known to legislators back then so its way for legislators to lower the bar and catch more people in the future, without anyone picking up on it at the time.

Anyway fabricating evidence has been around for as long evidence has been needed to settle disputes.

I think that's a bit melodramatic. Lots of people can afford 5k without being part of waves hands "the rich."

What do you mean by that? $5000 isn't a fine, it's the amount stolen that moves the offense into a higher category. How does that translate into making the rich able to commit crimes?

Because a rich person can steal 50m and get penalized the same way someone like us would when stealing a paltry sum. Though my comment also implies the rich can easily drag out their court case and afford an army of representation so they don't have to deal with whatever sentence they are getting. Even though the sentence itself is a sham because stealing 50m dollars being punished the same as stealing 5k is obviously a sham.

No, it's literally the opposite. People who steal small sums -- i.e. in street crimes -- get a smaller punishment.

??? The law has the same penalty for any crime over 5k, its literally the parent comment I am replying to.

Those that get a smaller penalty, i.e. those who steal under $5k, are overwhelmingly not wealthy. Wealthy people are not snatching people's purses on the street.

Of course. But the point is that 5k is FAR too low. The difference between stealing 5k and 50m is far greater than the difference between stealing $200 and $5001. Now read all my comments with this in mind and maybe you'll get what we've been saying.

The line at $5000 does not ascribe an equal punishment to crimes below or above that point. It changes the class of offense. The penalty will vary based on circumstances within what those classes allow.

https://www.oykhmancriminaldefence.com/faq/what-is-theft-und...

The only difference is in sentencing, and the difference is a lower upper limit on the length of incarceration for the lesser value stolen. There is no difference in the crime itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com