Equality before the law is a concept that dates back to at least the writing of the U.S. Constitution. The meaning has evolved over time, but generally boils down to the concept that protections and penalties should be constant for everyone who comes into contact with the legal system.

I’m not going to claim that this has often (ever?) been the case, but it certainly seems like an admirable goal which some have pursued more aggressively than others. For example, in Finland, traffic fines increase progressively with income:

In Finland, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver’s income. The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades: When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor. Indeed, sliding-scale financial penalties are also imposed for offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities-law violations. “This is a Nordic tradition,” says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior. “We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments. So the more you earn, the more you pay.”

The Finns obviously understand Utility in a way that Americans, who all slept through economics based on my personal observations, do not.

In fact, if anything the trend in here in the U.S. is heading the opposite direction, with Jail Upgrades now becoming an option for certain crimes and criminals:

For offenders whose crimes are usually relatively minor (carjackers should not bother) and whose bank accounts remain lofty, a dozen or so city jails across the state offer pay-to-stay upgrades. Theirs are a clean, quiet, if not exactly recherché alternative to the standard county jails, where the walls are bars, the fellow inmates are hardened and privileges are few. . . .

While equality under the law has always been a joke in the United States–research has shown repeatedly that the ability to afford extravagant (or at least competent) legal defense directly correlates to lower conviction rates and shorter sentences–at least the playing field purported to be level.

While I feel that the current state of inmate safety within the prison system is a travesty, I don’t feel that providing officially-sanctioned mitigation to those who can afford it is an appropriate starting point to fixing the problem. Physical and sexual violence at the hands of their fellow inmates is probably a non-violent offender’s greatest perceived risk during incarceration. To allow the wealthy to opt out of is, so long as their crimes are not too heinous, strikes me as outrageous and probably (IANAL, etc.) unconstitutional.

To me, $82/day (which is what the “safe” jails cost) would be expensive but well worth it for the risk mitigation it would provide. For others, $82/day is probably less than they would have spent each day on lunch if they were On The Outside. For most people, however, $82/day (== $9.00/hr working a 40-hour work week) is simply not an option. This is pretty much the definition of a regressive system.

If punishments (the Impact in a personal risk decision) are intended to encourage the desired risk decision (Avoidance, which is to say, “don’t do the crime”), which system seems more likely to encourage that behavior, meaning, Is Good Risk Management?

Cavalcade of Risk #28 is up!

And your post is in it:

http://www.workerscompinsider.com/archives/000705.html

[…] This entire rant was triggered by this posting by Chandler Howell musing about how these issues arise around the management of security and risk; with his particular examples being the Finnish parking tickets and an emerging trend that allows prisoners to purchase better accommodations. Talk about a throw back to pre-progressive times! He starts out by mentioning a principle, i.e. equality before the law. My reaction to that was, no. No, governments work by deciding how to balance the inequality that exists. That’s what politics is about. The default state is extremely unequal and you can assemble governments that accelerate or temper that. […]

[…] This entire rant was triggered by this posting by Chandler Howell musing about how these issues arise around the management of security and risk; with his particular examples being the Finnish parking tickets and an emerging trend that allows prisoners to purchase better accommodations. Talk about a throw back to pre-progressive times! He starts out by mentioning a principle, i.e. equality before the law. My reaction to that was, no. No, governments work by deciding how to balance the inequality that exists. That’s what politics is about. The default state is extremely unequal and you can assemble governments that accelerate or temper that. […]