• mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      They should be however much the company made by breaking the rules, with a hefty addition included, inversely multiplied by the chance that the company was going to get caught.

      For a company, deciding whether or not to break the law is a purely mathematical equation. If you can make $1M a day by breaking the law, there’s only a 1% chance per day that you’ll get caught, and the fine is only $5M? That’s a no brainer. To the company, they see a project with $1M income per day, a 99% success rate, and a $5M failure cost. All you need to do is go undetected for five days, and you’ve already made your money on the “investment”. Everything after that is pure profit.

      So the fines should be adjusted to fit that model. Using those same numbers, the fine would be the $1M per day that the scheme was going (meaning any profit made is now completely forfeit), plus the $5M, multiplied by 99 because they only had a 1% chance of getting caught.

      For a scheme that ran for 100 days before getting caught, (meaning they made $100M in profit) that fine would be a grand total of $10.395B… Not million. Billion. Because in order to deter companies from breaking the law, the punishment needs to account for the fact that the company is going to do the math on whether or not they’ll get caught, and what the fine is going to be. And when the company runs the numbers and decides that they have a 1% chance of getting caught, that should be a fucking terrifying number instead of just a slap on the wrist.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I love the idea. The math works out a bit different though. After 100 days it’s a 63% chance of getting caught so the fine would be 100/0.63= 159 million plus the additional fee. After 1 day the fine would be 1 million /0.01= 100 million plus the additional fee.

        I love the actuarial precision of the fine so that all the probability of profit is priced in. Calculating that probability will be complex though because they could argue there is a 100% chance of getting caught after you caught them lol.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          The death penalty’s only ethical application is when the subject is uncontainable by other means. The rich are proving that’s exactly the type of criminals they are, and when they do get close to getting caught the one guy who’s testimony could bury them mysteriously dies by ‘suicide’ at exactly the moment the cameras malfunction. I can’t think of a cabal of crooks more deserving of the death penalty.