The idea here is to eliminate penalties inequality, between citizens and correlate them with ones wealth.
When someone breaks the law and he is poor and someone who is wealthy breaks the law with the same way, usually they are submitted to the same penalty. The wealthy one will pay it and it will seem a low cost. Maybe this low cost can be a motivation to break the law again. For the poor one, it may be disastrous. This leads us to understand, that the penalties must be a function of ones wealth. A fixed amount MUST BE MULTIPLIED to the percentage of ones wealth and produce the final penalty.
Here is a simple example, let's say that someone parked illegally and let's assume the penalty is 50.
If someone gains 500 per month this is a painful penalty.
On the other hand if someone gains 10.000 per month this is nothing.
Let's assume now that our democracy is smart. The penalty of 50 will be the fixed amount. This amount will be multiplied with an algorithm so it can be adjusted equally. The algorithm will take into account the tax return and the seriousness of the violation. In our case the result of the algorithm could be to divide the penalty for the first citizen and make it 25 and multiply the penalty for the second citizen and make it a 100 or 250. We can call that penalties normalization.
This idea may seem of low significance at first glance. But let's consider that some violations are very cheap for some people and they gain precedence in society and access to resources than someone else cannot. This is establishing the well known unfair competition. Produces social inequality and discomfort, spreading the feeling that we don't have democracy and the laws are made to be violated of those who can. Without penalty normalization unfair competition arises.
Let's now take a more serious example, one bribes a public officer. The result of the bribe is "successful" and he gains access to information that leads the person to make a fortune.
If the penalty for the bribe is 50 and the gain was 5.000 then the person is motivated by the law to break it.
In a smart democracy environment the algorithm would discourage the person to break the law and would take under consideration the gain of the act. This would cause social equality and people would feel equal. Equal opportunities can result from equality against the law and this can be produced by the idea of normalized penalties. This will provide the feeling of real democracy as we sense and feel it.
As per many discussions on this topic and taking feedback from numerous friends, we believe that in practice, it is better to set an upper threshold of economic wealth. Above that to multiply the penalty with a certain algorithm so that rich people and poor ones will both be treated equal. One criterion could be the average wealth. Everyone who is above the average will have a graded increase.
Of course in countries with high tax evasion along with this normalization algorithm, other criteria must be applied.
Let's take for example a traffic violation. If someone is above the average wealth the algorithm of normalization will be applied. If some someone has lower income than average just to be sure we have to apply some other criteria.
One of the criteria that should be taken under consideration can be the commercial- market value of the car. If the market value of the car is above average then the algorithm of normalization should be applied again and increase gradually the penalty.
Another criterion is the wealth of the owner of the car. If the wealth of the owner of the car is above average even he is not driving the car and he is providing the car to a friend or his driver is driving the car , then again the penalty must increase with the certain algorithm of normalization.
In the last case maybe the penalty can be splitted between the driver and the owner.
As per the above analysis we can have many different gains for the society. One is to avoid spoiled rich young people that really don't care how they drive and they may cause severe problems to health and life of others. Of course except of them all people will feel that they will pay a penalty that is a percentage to their wealth and no-one will be above the law. The law will follow all even above average or much more above average.
The sense of justice between people inside a community should be increased and this is a good way by normalizing the penalties.
Unfair competition and the feeling that the richer is getting richer and the poor poorer will start to fade. This will bring the social groups closer.
Economic inequality and wealth gap is a great problem in social structure when the feeling and sense of justice is fading. The feeling of justice will bring people closer to its other and also to the state. As we are part of the state the sense of justice will make us trust the state again.
Of course the normalization algorithm can operate as a taxation to bring income to the state and redistribute the wealth with public structure.
Another topic that is related with the smart Justice but in the sense of society and not in the sense of court of justice, is the parameter of economic equality.
Commonly used measures of economic inequality is the Gini Coefficient. The Gini coefficient measures inequality across the whole of society rather than simply comparing different income groups.If all the income went to a single person (maximum inequality) and everyone else got nothing, the Gini coefficient would be equal to. If income was shared equally, and everyone got exactly the same, the Gini would equal 0. The lower the Gini value, the more equal a society.
If all the income went to a single person (maximum inequality) and everyone else got nothing, the Gini coefficient would be equal to 1.
The UK, a fairly unequal society, scores 0.34 and the US, an even more unequal society, 0.38. In contrast, Denmark, a much more equal society, scores 0.25.
You can find more here https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-economic-inequality-defined
Our proposal for the public sector is that there has to be a correlation between the minimum wage of the private sector and the maximum wage of the public sector. This means that for example if the state legislates a minimum wage for the private sector then there should be a coefficient that will multiply it and provide the maximum of the public wage.
In example a coefficient of ten and for a minimum wage of 5 will give a maximum wage of 50.
The coefficient of society consistency that will relate the minimum private sector wage with the maximum public sector's wage it is very important to bring social groups together and avoid extreme individualism that is tearing apart society.