And through it all, Trump has been required to remain seated, not gesturing, not talking and not using his phone. He has not even been allowed to adjust the temperature a few degrees in a courtroom he described as “freezing.”

  • acockworkorange
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’m always in favor of exponential fines. You can start at a very small sum at first offense and if you double at every new offense you’re quickly in the billions.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just make all fines proportional to net worth. I don’t want poors to be fucked for life for the same behavior that an affluenza sufferer would just pay $100k and be done with. Make contempt like 1% of net worth, everyone can choose how much it is worth to act a fool in court.

      • acockworkorange
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is what exponential fines solve. It can start at $100 and it’ll eventually stop when the unrepentant behavior raises it to the point of crippling the offender economically.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          For the record I would much rather have the exponential fines than this $1,000 joke of a punishment.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes but that point comes sooner for the poor person than the wealthy person. We should remove inequality in the justice system, not just work around it.

          • acockworkorange
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just don’t repeat the offense, bub. A fine is a deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, it’s not working. Imagine having to assess someone’s net worth every time a fine is to be applied.