Why not scale cash bail to match income/wealth? Then people of all economic levels will be affected by it more or less equally and none of us will have our fate in the hands of an opaque proprietary algorithm.
> Finland's speeding fines are linked to income, with penalties calculated on daily earnings, meaning high earners get hit with bigger penalties for breaking the law. So, when businessman Reima Kuisla was caught doing 103km/h (64mph) in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h (50mph), authorities turned to his 2013 tax return, the Iltalehti newspaper reports. He earned 6.5m euros (£4.72m) that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
I think you should consider some of the ethical implications of imposing vastly different punishments for the same behavior.
I would actually say it's the opposite.
If you punish everyone with the same fine, their wealth is divorced from the punishment.
If you punish each person depending on their wealth, the punishment is directly proportional to their wealth.
In saying that, very poor people are definitely disproportionately affected by equal punishment. Though you could also say poor people would be more motivated to commit crimes if the punishment was proportional, since they stand to gain a lot more than a rich person.
I don't think there's a right answer.
You wouldn't, you'd impose the same punishment on everyone, e.g. 1% of net worth.
That should probably be priced in relative to their ability to buy get-out-of-jail cards.
Edit: buy, not 'but'
In reality, rich people have lower actual crime rates than poor people. Compliance with the law is as much a financial rounding error as fines. The police in rich neighborhoods have easier jobs. Your typical rich person isn’t going around making a nuisance of himself. Even John DuPont kept his behavior on his own property.
If a poorer person (say, someone that works 6 hours a day at Walmart) and a richer person (say, someone that works 12 hours a day at Walmart) both steal $10,000 from someone, they have both caused the same amount of damage to the harmed individual. That is, they caused $10,000+moral damages (let's say $20,000 total damage). Why should the person that slaved harder and provided more value to society fork out more when they caused the same damage as a poorer person? If anything, the poorer person should pay more as recompense for being less useful to their fellow humans and broader society in aggregate. Of course money isn't the perfect proxy for societal value add but it's the best we have, especially in the context of a strong rule of law which will punish fraud etc.
There is no bank account of cash involved.
But $200M is less than .2% of his wealth.
It’s not even 10% of the annual growth in his wealth.
Bezos can write a check for $200,000,000 today and his bankers will cover it.
He can spend $1,000,000 to pay Goldman Sachs to leverage his investments to most efficiently cover just that one check’s cash value, and not even notice it.