Couldn't agree more. The justice system is very fond of claiming that harsh punishments deter crime. We should make them put their money where their mouth is and punish cops who break the law by having mandatory additional jail time on top of the normal sentence for whatever crime they committed. You could implement it as an 'abuse of authority' law. You break the law while acting in the capacity of your job as a police officer (I am aware there are some jurisdictions where cops are 'on duty' 24/7 in which case this would apply 24/7) and it's an extra 2 years + half the sentence length for the crime committed.
I think similar should be done for prosecutors. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.
I have to call BS on that. Yes, there is a bigger increase with A, but the only time this matters at all is if I have 2 vehicles in need of replacement at the same time, money for only one of them, and no pressing preference for utility between them; and then you would have to figure out which you drive more often to get a reasonable determination of which to get.
In reality, it works like this: you have a 20 mpg car in need of replacement. You can replace it with a 25 mpg car, or a 32 mpg car. Quick, which saves more gas?:
A) Replace the 20 mpg with 25 mpg
B) Replace the 20 mpg with 32 mpg.
For direct comparison of savings coming from two completely different situations, yes, gal/100 miles is better. But the combination of events and requirements needed for such a comparison to be at all useful is completely absurd. For nearly all situations the "which number is bigger" method of determining mileage superiority is perfectly adequate.
Leveraging always beats prototyping.