I think a question is: is the same dollar amount the same punishment? Jeff Bezos doesn’t need to think twice about a $10k fine but there are plenty of people for whom that would be ruinous. Arguably, the “sameness” has to do with the impact of the fine, not the amount.

Well no, the punishment should fit the crime. It's just that punishing a poor person by taking $1000 could kill them, and punishing a rich person by taking $1000 is barely even a punishment.

Given progressive taxation, it already takes higher income persons more pre-tax income to come up with $1000 post-tax.

The punishment is $1000. 2nd order consequences, while possibly serious, aren't part of the punishment.

These "2nd order consequences" are the whole point of punishment. Money is only means of delivering them.

That's the same as tying the consequences a person faces for a crime to their wealth (given how predictable the severity of these "2nd order consequences" are!) and that is, to me, terribly unjust.

> That's the same as tying the consequences a person faces for a crime to their wealth (given how predictable the severity of these "2nd order consequences" are!)

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.

> I think you should consider some of the ethical implications of imposing vastly different punishments for the same behavior.

You wouldn't, you'd impose the same punishment on everyone, e.g. 1% of net worth.