NationStates Jolt Archive

As inspired by this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582561&postcount=25) in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473183).

Assuming a theft, what amount of money stolen should be the threshold for a prison sentence of (to choose an arbitrary length) one year? Is stealing US$ 0.01 sufficient to put a man in prison? US$1? US$10? Please justify your answer.

That is actually a really good question... and one I don't immediately have an answer for. How much is a year of a life worth? Hmm, I'll have to think about that, should be an interesting thread.

I know most people will disagree, but I think that prison sentences for non-violent crimes like theft are bunk. Just garnish the guys paycheck until it is paid off. Add community service or something like that. No reason the taxpayers shoud have to spend 30k a year to feed and keep the guy locked up.

Stealing is stealing.

In my opinion, the sentence should not be based on what was stolen, but the very act of stealing.

Stealing is stealing.

In my opinion, the sentence should not be based on what was stolen, but the very act of stealing.

I disagree. Some guy who nicks a little cash from the register or steals a pack of gum doesn't deserve a jail sentence, ever.

Stealing is stealing.

In my opinion, the sentence should not be based on what was stolen, but the very act of stealing.that's why the old saying goes, " never steal anything small". you steal millions or you steal pocket change the punishment is similiar but the benefits are vastly different.

that's why the old saying goes, " never steal anything small". you steal millions or you steal pocket change the punishment is similiar but the benefits are vastly different.

But it's still the same act.

Should you get a lighter sentence for raping a homeless woman rather than a high powered lawyer?

But it's still the same act.

Should you get a lighter sentence for raping a homeless woman rather than a high powered lawyer?

rape is different from money. rape is rape no matter how you look at it. but who cares if some guy takes 25cents from a coffee table. if it were 25 million, yeah that would be a big deal.

rape is different from money. rape is rape no matter how you look at it. but who cares if some guy takes 25cents from a coffee table. if it were 25 million, yeah that would be a big deal.
They are both crimes. They are both the same crime. Therefore, should the punishments not be the same?

They are both crimes. They are both the same crime. Therefore, should the punishments not be the same?

no, because raping another person has no measure of degree. you cant just 'rape a little bit.' its either rape or not. money does have a measure of degree. you can steal a little, or a lot. so the punishment should meet the severity of the crime...

No, because although they have a similar end result(an unfair loss to others), giving the same sentence to large theft and small would show people like crooked CEOs and Bank Robbers that we don't think they are any worse then petty theives.

There should be a cap on it. If some steals $100, no jail, just make him pay it back plus another $100 or $200 or so. But repeat offenders might get something.

no, because raping another person has no measure of degree. you cant just 'rape a little bit.' its either rape or not. money does have a measure of degree. you can steal a little, or a lot. so the punishment should meet the severity of the crime...

If you think of rape as having degrees, you get into a similar situation. Full rape should propably be punished more than groping, for example.

No, because although they have a similar end result(an unfair loss to others), giving the same sentence to large theft and small would show people like crooked CEOs and Bank Robbers that we don't think they are any worse then petty theives.

They are petty thieves. All theft is theft. No matter what is taken or what is not.

If you think of rape as having degrees, you get into a similar situation. Full rape should propably be punished more than groping, for example.

groping wouldnt be rape, it would be sexual harrasment(sp?)...

As inspired by this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582561&postcount=25) in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473183).

Assuming a theft, what amount of money stolen should be the threshold for a prison sentence of (to choose an arbitrary length) one year? Is stealing US$ 0.01 sufficient to put a man in prison? US$1? US$10? Please justify your answer.

The amount is irrelevant, it is the circumstances that surround the act. Is this a person stealing food? Are they without a job and actually unable to find employment because their government made it possible to accomodate a foreign national above a citizen? or is it a case of the Klepto houswife looking for some excitement, a professional thief, a politician, or habitual sticky fingered pimpley faced teenager who's parents should have kicked in the ass the first time he came home with half the local drug stores candy isle?
All these things must be taken into consideration, however the politician and pimply faced teenager should be executed as they are most certainly beyond reform. ;)

They are petty thieves. All theft is theft. No matter what is taken or what is not.

your right but how can you say a million dollar bank robber is equal to a guy that steals a purse? allbeit it is still theft, but one is far more severe than the other. wouldnt you agree to that?

It's unsurprising that the person who wants an indiscriminate sentance for those who steal shows such a massive lack of humanity.

"Should you get a lighter sentence for raping a homeless woman rather than a high powered lawyer?".

No, because people are people you sick idiot and a high powered lawyer doesn't have any more rights than the homeless. I don't need a second guess to tell you're right wing.

In answer: the amount isn't relevant, it's the consequence. Stealing a poor man's only means of providing for his family should be treated differently than someone stealing from big multi-national chains. Even if they were the same amounts.

your right but how can you say a million dollar bank robber is equal to a guy that steals a purse? albeit it is steal theft, but one is far more severe than the other. wouldn't you agree to that?

The crime is equal. What is stolen does not matter, the very act of stealing does.

Should killing one person merit a less severe sentence than killing 10 (assuming the same circumstances)?

your right but how can you say a million dollar bank robber is equal to a guy that steals a purse? allbeit it is still theft, but one is far more severe than the other. wouldnt you agree to that?

Robbery is an entirely different crime. Both cases are robbery and are violent crimes. Neither are theft.

The crime is equal. What is stolen does not matter, the very act of stealing does.

Should killing one person merit a less severe sentence than killing 10 (assuming the same circumstances)?

People are all worth the same. Money is worth different amounts.

groping wouldnt be rape, it would be sexual harrasment(sp?)...

Just as stealing $0.10 wouldn't be theft, it would be petty theft.

The crime is equal. What is stolen does not matter, the very act of stealing does.

Should killing one person merit a less severe sentence than killing 10 (assuming the same circumstances)?

Yes. One is serial murder, the other isn't.

The crime is equal. What is stolen does not matter, the very act of stealing does.

Should killing one person merit a less severe sentence than killing 10 (assuming the same circumstances)?

killing is different imo. killing is killing just like rape is rape. you say theft is theft but i say its a completly different circumstance. a guy that steals a bicycle should not have the same punishment as a guy that steals a car. why? becuase a car costs thousands of dollars and a bike costs hundreds.

It's unsurprising that the person who wants an indiscriminate sentance for those who steal shows such a massive lack of humanity.

"Should you get a lighter sentence for raping a homeless woman rather than a high powered lawyer?".

No, because people are people you sick idiot and a high powered lawyer doesn't have any more rights than the homeless. I don't need a second guess to tell you're right wing.

In answer: the amount isn't relevant, it's the consequence. Stealing a poor man's only means of providing for his family should be treated differently than someone stealing from big multi-national chains. Even if they were the same amounts.


And you make my point. The lawyer, in the eyes of the law, is equal to the homeless person, even though one could make the arguement that the lawyer contributes more to society, ie, more valuable.

Stealing is a crime, no matter who commits it or what is stolen.

Oh, and thank you for your flamey and assumptive post. It really shows your intellegence.

People are all worth the same. Money is worth different amounts.

bingo! :D

It's unsurprising that the person who wants an indiscriminate sentance for those who steal shows such a massive lack of humanity.

"Should you get a lighter sentence for raping a homeless woman rather than a high powered lawyer?".

No, because people are people you sick idiot and a high powered lawyer doesn't have any more rights than the homeless. I don't need a second guess to tell you're right wing.



How cute. I am right wing and you use my argument to support your position and then use it to justify flaming someone by calling them an idiot and right wing. How liberal of you.

bingo! :D

But the act is the same. Stealing $1000 is the same act as stealing $10. You are stealing. You are commiting a crime. You deserve punishment.

But the act is the same. Stealing $1000 is the same act as stealing $10. You are stealing. You are commiting a crime. You deserve punishment.

yes, but not the same punishment...

killing is different imo. killing is killing just like rape is rape. you say theft is theft but i say its a completly different circumstance. a guy that steals a bicycle should not have the same punishment as a guy that steals a car. why? becuase a car costs thousands of dollars and a bike costs hundreds.

But they are both stealing. You are causing the material loss of one person for your own, illegal, gain.

How cute. I am right wing and you use my argument to support your position and then use it to justify flaming someone by calling them an idiot and right wing. How liberal of you.

I think someone saying that a person deserves raping more than another because of their financial situation is likely to be right wing and certainly an idiot. So run along kid

yes, but not the same punishment...

Why? You are causing loss. You are causing hurt. You are causing suffering to the owner.

(isn't it nice to have a civil debate, for once? :) )

But they are both stealing. You are causing the material loss of one person for your own, illegal, gain.

yeah they are both stealing. but the punishment for someone who steals $10000 should not be the same as someone who steals $10...

But the act is the same. Stealing $1000 is the same act as stealing $10. You are stealing. You are commiting a crime. You deserve punishment.

You are of course correct, however, I thank the almighty whoever our system usually makes allowances for mitigating circumstances.

And you make my point. The lawyer, in the eyes of the law, is equal to the homeless person, even though one could make the arguement that the lawyer contributes more to society, ie, more valuable.

Stealing is a crime, no matter who commits it or what is stolen.

Oh, and thank you for your flamey and assumptive post. It really shows your intellegence.

My assumption was that your argument makes sense, obviously that was premature.

So, thankfully you're not suggesting what I thought - but yes, people are equal in the eyes of the law, but $10 and $10000 are not. Dismissed.

I think someone saying that a person deserves raping more than another because of their financial situation is likely to be right wing and certainly an idiot. So run along kid

Please, do show where I said that the homeless person deserves to be raped more than the lawyer. If anything, I am arguing the exact opposite.

And I do not appreciate being flamed. Desist.

My assumption was that your argument makes sense, obviously that was premature.

So, thankfully you're not suggesting what I thought - but yes, people are equal in the eyes of the law, but $10 and $10000 are not. Dismissed.

Are they? Is law not supposed to be blind? Is the statue of law (the name escapes me) not blindfolded? You are causing hurt and hardship.

You are of course correct, however, I thank the almighty whoever our system usually makes allowances for mitigating circumstances.

And what might these "mitigating circumstances" be, in regards to our current discussion?

Why? You are causing loss. You are causing hurt. You are causing suffering to the owner.

(isn't it nice to have a civil debate, for once? :) )

it is nice :D ::hugs::

ok they both are causing hurt. but one is hurting more than the other. some kid who lost his bicycle would be upset for sure. but what about the dude that just got his ferrari stolen? that ferrari is worth far more than a bicycle and therefore the person who stole the car should be punished more than the person who stole the bike...

I think someone saying that a person deserves raping more than another because of their financial situation is likely to be right wing and certainly an idiot. So run along kid

That would be dad to you pimply faced teenager. (see my the rest of my words for your proper dispostion)

it is nice :D ::hugs::

ok they both are causing hurt. but one is hurting more than the other. some kid who lost his bicycle would be upset for sure. but what about the dude that just got his ferrari stolen? that ferrari is worth far more than a bicycle and therefore the person who stole the car should be punished more than the person who stole the bike...

Really? Ok, I'll play.

The car may be worth far more in a purely monetary sence. But, could the person who owns the car not, more than likely, afford something similar, even with the car being stolen? And what of the child? Do you think he could afford another bike such as that? And here is the tricky part. We try to judge hurt. And we cannot do that. The law cannot let such humanistic principals into itself.

Are they? Is law not supposed to be blind? Is the statue of law (the name escapes me) not blindfolded? You are causing hurt and hardship.

and the hurt and hardship differs with circumstance, surely?

So, giving someone a black eye is treated differently to someone who murders.

Of course this is dependant on consequence, as I argued earlier, not money. But a blanket sentance on theft is not in keeping with this at all

And what might these "mitigating circumstances" be, in regards to our current discussion?

I am sure there are many, however, I cannot see the law being blind in determining the severity of a theft when it is for the purpose of feeding ones family. (unless of course they consider thieving their occupation)

Really? Ok, I'll play.

The car may be worth far more in a purely monetary sence. But, could the person who owns the car not, more than likely, afford something similar, even with the car being stolen? And what of the child? Do you think he could afford another bike such as that? And here is the tricky part. We try to judge hurt. And we cannot do that. The law cannot let such humanistic principals into itself.

It can and it does.

I have to agree with the idea of theft is theft. It's not the amount that makes it theft as much as it is the intent of the person committing the crime.

I am sure there are many, however, I cannot see the law being blind in determining the severity of a theft when it is for the purpose of feeding ones family. (unless of course they consider thieving their occupation)

Ah. So, as long as certain people do the crime, they should be punished less severely?

As I said, the law is blind. Just as the person should get the same punishment no matter who they raped, the person who steals should get the same punishment.

If one expects to be protected by the law, one must respect the law, no matter the circumstance.

It can and it does.

Care to back that up?

Really? Ok, I'll play.

The car may be worth far more in a purely monetary sence. But, could the person who owns the car not, more than likely, afford something similar, even with the car being stolen? And what of the child? Do you think he could afford another bike such as that? And here is the tricky part. We try to judge hurt. And we cannot do that. The law cannot let such humanistic principals into itself.

we cant say if either one of them could afford to replace the stolen property. thats not the point. the point is that the property that was stolen has different value. so the person who lost the car is in more debt than the kid that lost the bike. therefore, one crime is more severe than the other. and likewise, the punishments should match the severity of teh crime...

I have to agree with the idea of theft is theft. It's not the amount that makes it theft as much as it is the intent of the person committing the crime.

so you would send a guy to prison for 10 years because he stole 1.3 million from such and such company. and you would also put a guy who stole 35 bucks from his boss to jail for 10 years? if all theft is theft than they each deserver the same sentence. and i think that that is not just becuase one crime is more severe than the other...

we cant say if either one of them could afford to replace the stolen property. thats not the point. the point is that the property that was stolen has different value. so the person who lost the car is in more debt than the kid that lost the bike. therefore, one crime is more severe than the other. and likewise, the punishments should match the severity of teh crime...

But why? The crime is the same! They are both causing hardship! It is judging loss. And the law cannot judge loss. The law judges the crime, and only the crime. What was taken, who was raped, who was murdered, it does not, and should not, matter in the eyes of the LAW!

But why? The crime is the same! They are both causing hardship! It is judging loss. And the law cannot judge loss. The law judges the crime, and only the crime. What was taken, who was raped, who was murdered, it does not, and should not, matter in the eyes of the LAW!

no no no no grasshopper! the crime is not the same! one guy stole a car, another guy stole a bike. is a car and a bike the same? no i say! no! and neither are the crimes...

/dramatic tone
:D

no no no no grasshopper! the crime is not the same! one guy stole a car, another guy stole a bike. is a car and a bike the same? no i say! no! and neither are the crimes...

/dramatic tone
:D

The car and the bike are not the same, but the intention and the act are identical.

Care to back that up?

Civil law, for one.

Ah. So, as long as certain people do the crime, they should be punished less severely?

As I said, the law is blind. Just as the person should get the same punishment no matter who they raped, the person who steals should get the same punishment.

If one expects to be protected by the law, one must respect the law, no matter the circumstance.

I believe it to be unreasonable to expect a person faced with starvation to follow the same ethical code, or even have the same degree of respect for law that could be expected of someone who steals for a living, the thrill of it, the opportunist, or the habitual thief.
I also believe it to be impossible for a reasonable person to find a way to compare theft to the violent crime of rape.
There must be flexibility within the law, otherwise, respect for the law will will cease to exist.

Civil law, for one.

We are not talking civil law. Civil law is a whole different ball game, champ.

I believe it to be unreasonable to expect a person faced with starvation to follow the same ethical code, or even have the same degree of respect for law that could be expected of someone who steals for a living, the thrill of it, the opportunist, or the habitual thief.
I also believe it to be impossible for a reasonable person to find a way to compare theft to the violent crime of rape.
There must be flexibility within the law, otherwise, respect for the law will will cease to exist.

But if we do have flexibility in the law, so that certain people are given a free pass for their crimes, why have a supposedly equal law at all?

EDIT: w00t, 6,000!

The car and the bike are not the same, but the intention and the act are identical.

AHA! you agree with that. the intention and act are equal, i agreed. so we agree that both are commiting the same 'act' of thievery. and we also agree that the car and bike are not the same. therefore, the punishment should match that which was stolen. the car theif deserves a harsher penalty than the bicycle theif...

EDIT: w00t, 6,000!

pfft, spammer...

The intention and the act are the same?

a biscuit and enough to topple a bank and ruin thousands of business and millions of lives?

They're the same?

Let's take the intention and the act principle to it's logical conclusion: should all speeding drivers be punished the same as those who speed and hit someone as a result of that speeding?

AHA! you agree with that. the intention and act are equal, i agreed. so we agree that both are commiting the same 'act' of thievery. and we also agree that the car and bike are not the same. therefore, the punishment should match that which was stolen. the car theif deserves a harsher penalty than the bicycle theif...

And that is where I disagree with you. I believe that it does not matter what you steal, or who you stole from. What matters is the act. Nothing more.

The intention and the act are the same?

a biscuit and enough to topple a bank and ruin thousands of business and millions of lives?

They're the same?

Let's take the intention and the act principle to it's logical conclusion: should all speeding drivers be punished the same as those who speed and hit someone as a result of that speeding?

Is hitting a person the same as speeding? No.

Is killing a factory worker the same as killing the Prime Minister? Yes.

And that is where I disagree with you. I believe that it does not matter what you steal, or who you stole from. What matters is the act. Nothing more.

A man throws a rock blindly and it hits a tree
A man throws a rock blindly and it hits a child standing in front of a tree

Should all rock throwers recieve years in jail?

And that is where I disagree with you. I believe that it does not matter what you steal, or who you stole from. What matters is the act. Nothing more.

so like i said to PasturePastry, "would you send a guy to prison for 10 years because he stole 1.3 million from such and such company. and you would also put a guy who stole 35 bucks from his boss to jail for 10 years? if all theft is theft than they each deserver the same sentence. and i think that that is not just becuase one crime is more severe than the other..."

A man throws a rock blindly and it hits a tree
A man throws a rock blindly and it hits a child standing in front of a tree

Should all rock throwers recieve years in jail?

I believe that would be called an accident. And, rock-throwing is not a crime.

Is stealing $20 from a man in poverty leaving him penniless as bad a crime as stealing $20 from Bill Gates?

so like i said to PasturePastry, "would you send a guy to prison for 10 years because he stole 1.3 million from such and such company. and you would also put a guy who stole 35 bucks from his boss to jail for 10 years? if all theft is theft than they each deserver the same sentence. and i think that that is not just becuase one crime is more severe than the other..."

The act is the same. The intent is the same. The result should be the same.

Is hitting a person the same as speeding? No.

Is killing a factory worker the same as killing the Prime Minister? Yes.

aha, it's not the same why? because of the different consequences of speeding. Let's say you crash into a tree through speeding, but ten minutes earlier you would have crashed into a tree that had a child in front of it. What then? Are they still different? Or if you kill the child but seconds later and you would have only injured him or her? What then?

Is stealing $20 from a man in poverty leaving him penniless as bad a crime as stealing $20 from Bill Gates?

In the eyes of the law, yes.

The act is the same. The intent is the same. The result should be the same.

the act is the same. the intent is the same. the severity of the crime is different. the result should be different punishment...

aha, it's not the same why? because of the different consequences of speeding. Let's say you crash into a tree through speeding, but ten minutes earlier you would have crashed into a tree that had a child in front of it. What then? Are they still different? Or if you kill the child but seconds later and you would have only injured him or her? What then?

You commit no crime by crashing yourself into a tree.

Is hitting a person the same as speeding? No.

TSI. do you have to pay the same ticket for speeding 5mph over the limit as speeding 15mph over the limit? speeding is speeding, but that answer is no, you have to pay more money the more you were over the limit. and just like stealing, you deserve to be punished more for stealing more...

But if we do have flexibility in the law, so that certain people are given a free pass for their crimes, why have a supposedly equal law at all?

EDIT: w00t, 6,000!

No one said anything about a free pass, simply a degree of latitude dictated by the mitigating circumstances in each individual case if there happen to be any. When law becomes blind, then the first thing that we lose is justice. Unfortunatlely this does mean that there will be mistakes and some will learn to game the system, but it is the best we can ever hope for. This is why in cases such as theft, with a mitigating factor of "survival", I believe justice could only be served if the individual was given assistance in finding a job (1st offense) then placed on some sort of serious probational restrictions.
Without mitigating circumstances involved then you are correct. The amount is not the issue, nor should it be, but are you really willing to lock a lonely houswife up who lifts a lipstick for 20 years the same as you would the professional thief who steals the Mona Lisa?

Edit: Congrats 6000!

the act is the same. the intent is the same. the severity of the crime is different. the result should be different punishment...

And I disagree. You intend to cause someone hardship and harm. You make an effort to enrich yourself from others, without their permission.

The act is the same.

In the eyes of the law, yes.

The question is not concerned with the laws as they stand (if nothing else we are an international community here on NSGeneral), but with the laws as they could or should stand.

TSI. do you have to pay the same ticket for speeding 5mph over the limit as speeding 15mph over the limit? speeding is speeding, but that answer is no, you have to pay more money the more you were over the limit. and just like stealing, you deserve to be punished more for stealing more...


The law is still being broken.

You commit no crime by crashing yourself into a tree.

that's rubbish. It's dangerous driving if it's the result of you speeding. Question stands

The law is still being broken.

yes, but it is being broken to a different degree. the faster you speed, the more money you have to pay...

The question is not concerned with the laws as they stand (if nothing else we are an international community here on NSGeneral), but with the laws as they could or should stand.

Basically, the western world holds pretty much the same laws. There are differences, but the main points are quite uniform. Obviously, stealing is against the law. All nations' laws. Period.

that's rubbish. It's dangerous driving if it's the result of you speeding. Question stands

"Dangerous driving", in and of itself, is no crime, IMHO. You break the law when you hurt someone, or caue property damage, due to neglegence.

Basically, the western world holds pretty much the same laws. There are differences, but the main points are quite uniform. Obviously, stealing is against the law. All nations' laws. Period.

The question is not whether stealing is against the law or not: by definition it is, the question is whether the actual loss felt by those who are stolen from should be taken into consideration by the law.

The question is not whether stealing is against the law or not: by definition it is, the question is whether the actual loss felt by those who are stolen from should be taken into consideration by the law.

Indeed, that is the question.

I maintain that loss should not be judged by the law. The intention and act should be judged, not the result.

Alright guys, I have got to get to sleep. It's 1:00 in the AM here, and I have class at 8:00.

It's been fun. I would welcome continuing this discussion at a later date.

G-nite!

"Dangerous driving", in and of itself, is no crime, IMHO. You break the law when you hurt someone, or caue property damage, due to neglegence.

In otherwords, consequence. You see no difference between consequences then? Once it's not zero, it's everything?

Two questions:

What would you do with someone who stole a sausage?

What would you do with someone who brought down a massive insurance company and ruined millions?

Indeed, that is the question.

I maintain that loss should not be judged by the law. The intention and act should be judged, not the result.

So if I intend to reduce the already poor man to abject poverty is it somehow worse than if I intend to relieve good Mr Gates of some piddling small change that he'll never really feel the lack of anyhow?

Indeed, that is the question.

I maintain that loss should not be judged by the law. The intention and act should be judged, not the result.

The intention and act of dangerous driving resulting in crashing into a tree is EXACTLY the same in the second example whereby a child in front of the tree is killed. You mantained one was a crime and another wasn't.

Well, I guess that proves you're wrong :) those two simply don't comply.

Next time, try harder por favor that was a bit too easy

Indeed, that is the question.

I maintain that loss should not be judged by the law. The intention and act should be judged, not the result.

so if the punihsment for stealing was to cut off the hand of the theif, you would cut off the hand of someone who stole an apple? would that not be too severe for such a small crime? you have to take in to account the value of what was stolen...

Alright guys, I have got to get to sleep. It's 1:00 in the AM here, and I have class at 8:00.

It's been fun. I would welcome continuing this discussion at a later date.

G-nite!

i have a midterm tomorrow at 11. i need to study but im taking the time for you to see how you are wrong and i am right...:D

Well, since we already base our lovely tax system on how much the person owns or makes... why not do it for this too?

Therefore, I propose that if a homeless man is to steal 25 cents, that should be equal to a year in prison, but anything less is not.

And if a CEO or wealthy government employee is to steal ten or twelve million dollars, that should earn a year in prison.

That'll do it. Progressive all the way!

Well, since we already base our lovely tax system on how much the person owns or makes... why not do it for this too?

Therefore, I propose that if a homeless man is to steal 25 cents, that should be equal to a year in prison, but anything less is not.

And if a CEO or wealthy government employee is to steal ten or twelve million dollars, that should earn a year in prison.

That'll do it. Progressive all the way!

Or should it be the other way round, after all the tax system is based on taking money off people not granting it to them. So, if I steal >25c from a homeless man, I go to jail for a year, whereas if I steal >$10,000,000 from a CEO, I go to jail for a year, but do not if I steal less?

I think he was joking :D

Or should it be the other way round, after all the tax system is based on taking money off people not granting it to them. So, if I steal >25c from a homeless man, I go to jail for a year, whereas if I steal >$10,000,000 from a CEO, I go to jail for a year, but do not if I steal less?

Quiet, you!