[eru]

There's a maximum amount of punishment you want to mete out to convicts. Otherwise everything would carry a penalty worse than death.

So there's a trade-off between handing out more of that punishment in fines to be paid to the victim or in economically inefficient activities like prison time.

As a related matter, I think corporal punishment deserves more consideration. Mostly because it's cheaper to administer than prison, and also avoids forcible socializing convicts only with each other as happens in prison.

(Of course, it's a punishment with a certain cruelty. Alas violence and injury are a common enough sight in overcrowded prisons, too.)

[wpietri]

The person we're discussing is heir to a $20 billion fortune. A fine that would constitute actual punishment to him is in the billions. Which I'm entirely in favor of here, preferably 19.9 billion or higher.

But restitution isn't punishment. Restitution helps reduce harm to the victim, and is a separate issue entirely to punishment.

[eru]

Sorry, I wasn't talking aware that you were talking punishment as in the need to cause pain for some abstract moral reason or to make people feel good.

I was more worried about issues like deterrence and restitution.

Punishment and deterrence are somewhat related, but not the same.