[JumpCrisscross]

> how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient

I don’t personally believe jail should be limited to violent acts for this reason. (My exceptions being corruption and fraud.)

[sorokod]

Well OK, how about a case where a convicted fraudster is unable to pay the financial penalty that was imposed on them?

[JumpCrisscross]

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant people shouldn’t go to jail unless it’s violence, corruption or fraud. Then jail time should be on the table. (But never mandatory.)

[from]

What about receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc? There are enough ethically flexible people out there and if you remove the major deterrent from doing these societally bad but nonviolent things I think occurrences of them would all increase a decent amount.

[JumpCrisscross]

> receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc

Campaign finance violations seem clear cut corruption. (Again, not mandatory jail sentencing. But jail is on the table.)

Perjury and contempt obviously need the capacity to put someone in jail. I resolve the moral discrepancy with their short durations. Theft is the elephant in the room for this framework, and I don't have a good answer for it.

[from]

> In 2011, Junker admitted to all of this when he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy. Specifically, he acknowledged conspiring to solicit political campaign contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees and to later reimburse those employees in the guise of employee bonuses. (https://rollcall.com/2014/04/08/do-campaign-finance-violatio...)

There are campaign finance violations that I would not consider corruption in the quid-pro-quo sense but are still illegal. I am sympathetic to your line of reasoning though I think the current sentencing guidelines are by and large fair. I would like to see less emphasis on "intended loss" and more rewards for making victims whole.

[notch898b]

Willful negligence resulting in death arguably is violence. It becomes obvious when the device is not a blood test but say firing a gun in the air without regard to where the bullet will land. Willfully misrepresenting medical testing is firing a gun in the air without regard to where it goes; it is totally unreasonable to believe the outcome will be anything but violent.

[sorokod]

I think that the taking away of personal freedom is "democratic" in the sense that it is painful for rich and poor. Not so for financial penalties.

Consider a "fake it till you make it" company that produces medical equipment. During the the "fake it" phase some people suffered life changing damage directly related to the company's equipment. The damaged is quantified and the company pays up without breaking a (financial) sweat.