The editorial expressing outrage in regard to the 80-month prison sentence for Rhonda Breard is understandable, but not very helpful. What we need is a better way to determine the appropriate time behind bars for white-collar criminals.

My suggestion is to make the decision purely on the basis of the amount stolen. I offer two approaches, both of which can be easily implemented.

Method 1

Divide the amount stolen by the current average individual annual income. The result is the number of years to be spent in prison. The social justice is achieved by the criminal “paying back” to society at a fair rate of exchange. According to the latest statistical abstract, the current average individual income is less than $30,000 per year. Based on a theft of $12 million, using this formula, Ms. Breard should serve at least 400 years in prison, with time off for good behavior, of course.

Method 2

Convert the white-collar crime into a conventional crime equivalent. This can be done by dividing the amount stolen by the current value of a human life. A number of such valuations already exist. For example, the death benefit of a soldier killed in the Middle East is $500,000. Wrongful death lawsuits range between $2-$4 million depending on the age of the victim. Economic policy cost-benefit analysis frequently use $1 million. Using the high and the low values, Ms. Breard has taken between three and 24 equivalent human lives. Consequently, one or more consecutive life sentences would be appropriate.

Either method yields a sentence substantially longer than the term awarded in the Breard case. Both result in prison terms likely to be viewed as fairer and more just. And I argue society is better served with a mathematical connection between crime and punishment than the haphazard and completely arbitrary standards that seem to be in place today.

Jim Lewis, Kirkland