As a curious aside: In some scandanavian countries, the penalties are directly tied to wealth (e.g. the $103,000 speeding ticket [1]). The idea is to make the punishment proportional to each individual so that wealth cannot simply grant you a free pass to violate "minor" laws.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

I like that, instead of "the punishment should fit the crime" it should be "the punishment should disincentivize the person from doing it again"

I think there is a reasonable argument that it should be proportional to finance. Let's say two people both get speeding tickets, one of whom is making $10 an hour the other makes $100 an hour. There is an argument that you should fine them based on their income as a proportional punishment, otherwise the fine may be excessive for the person with a small income, but negligible and not a deterrant for a person with a large income.

> But why it matters at all? Penalty should be proportional to the deed, not to the person's finances.

I would argue the opposite, why do you think this is the case?

Isn't it basic profiling, in this case based on wealth? Should rich people be penalized more for their mistakes than poor people?

And what we're arguing is not that right now they are being penalized less and should be penalized the same.

no, individualized sentences are part of the justice procedure.

It matters because fixed fees mean a % of the population will be unscathed by those consequences, and a % will be unable to afford the fine.