Furry Spatula
...
It is punishing them more. $100000 is MORE than $100.
Finnish man fined almost $5000
- Thread starter Furry Spatula
- Start date
Switch625
I don't care.
This is irrelevant. Justice must be applied equally, and if it is not it cannot be trusted. Besides, the main punishment is the ticket. If you get too many tickets, your license is revoked. That hurts the rich and poor equally.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well I guess I don't have to tell you that most people wouldn't like to be put into a prison, no matter what hobbies they have.
How bad you personally percieve it is not measureable, unlike your income when we talk about fees.
Well, if someone has nothing to lose you will never find something to punish him with.
You again miss something about the fee. Someone who earns a million it still hit less by paying 10% (100,000 $) than someone who earns 1000 $, because you can still live great with 900,000 $ (you won't miss the 100,000 much in your daily life) while the other one will have serious problems without the 100 $.
That why taxes should have different percentages, but that's another topic.
If the law is concerned it should be equal, but relative fees (percentages) are closer to equal than absolute ones.
Everybody has some sort of income, which can be welfare or your parent's money. The fee would be computed relative to that (in fact that's how it's done in other cases).
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Hmm, the concept of relative and absolute equality can't be so hard to understand...
$ 100 out of $ 1000 is 10%. $ 100000 out of $ 10000000 is 1%.
1% is a whole lot less than 10%.
To build on what Hitro said:
Is it not funny how rish people say: It's not fair I have to pay 50% of my income in tax but the porr only have to pay 10%. I have a higher %, that's not fair.
Well as Hitro say, when it come to fines pore pay a higher % of income. Well is that fair?
Tonberry has a god point to. The point of a punishment is to make people thing againg before they do it. A $100 fine don't bother rich people, OR DOES IT?
Is it not funny how rish people say: It's not fair I have to pay 50% of my income in tax but the porr only have to pay 10%. I have a higher %, that's not fair.
Well as Hitro say, when it come to fines pore pay a higher % of income. Well is that fair?
Tonberry has a god point to. The point of a punishment is to make people thing againg before they do it. A $100 fine don't bother rich people, OR DOES IT?
Ok ok let's settle this point. I argue about the principe of finning the rich people more. The speed limit is just an example. In that case it work relatively well because there are other consequences. But is it the same thing in Finland? It is irrelevant anyway because I just use it as an example.
Furry Spatula
...
There is a fail safe in place however for "rich people" to not abuse the system. Get too many tickets. You cannot drive legally anymore. Get caught driving with a suspended license. Go to jail. Its quite simple.
The fine is there if people aren't quite bright enough to realize that speeding is a bad idea. However, not everyone clues in on that and that is why licenses are suspended and vehicles are even impounded.
When you say everyone has some kind of income, be it parents money or not. That isn't necessarily true. With no recipts it is easy to hide income. First of all, gifts are not legally considered income. Thus if food and clothing and a car are gifts from a parent. You have no income.
Just out of curriosity. Why are you guys so upset that speeding tickets are universally $100? The ticket is mostly meant as one type of punishment. If you are constantly speeding and getting caught, then you are being punished as one form of punishment didn't work. Contrary to what many of you believe, "Rich" people aren't speeding all around town all the time. I am going to make an assumption now, but these seem not to be pretty rare in this entire thread
. BUt I'm pretty damn sure that once someone has their license taken away they are going to think twice when they can get their license again.
And by the way. Stop saying only rich people can speed. I am nowhere near f*cking rich. I find it stupid that you guys think that rich people are so evil. I am an 18 year old university student. I deliver pizza. I make ~$150-200 every two weeks because of the shifts i get (only 2). I pay for the gas and insurance on the car that my parents let me borrow. I can afford to pay speeding tickets and I am nowhere near rich. Keep in mind I'm talking about canadian currency. The standard fine in BC for speeding is about $150 for 10-20 above the limit. $250-300 for 20-30 above the limit. And about $550-600 for 40 or more above the limit. But just keep that in mind.
The fine is there if people aren't quite bright enough to realize that speeding is a bad idea. However, not everyone clues in on that and that is why licenses are suspended and vehicles are even impounded.
When you say everyone has some kind of income, be it parents money or not. That isn't necessarily true. With no recipts it is easy to hide income. First of all, gifts are not legally considered income. Thus if food and clothing and a car are gifts from a parent. You have no income.
Just out of curriosity. Why are you guys so upset that speeding tickets are universally $100? The ticket is mostly meant as one type of punishment. If you are constantly speeding and getting caught, then you are being punished as one form of punishment didn't work. Contrary to what many of you believe, "Rich" people aren't speeding all around town all the time. I am going to make an assumption now, but these seem not to be pretty rare in this entire thread
. BUt I'm pretty damn sure that once someone has their license taken away they are going to think twice when they can get their license again.And by the way. Stop saying only rich people can speed. I am nowhere near f*cking rich. I find it stupid that you guys think that rich people are so evil. I am an 18 year old university student. I deliver pizza. I make ~$150-200 every two weeks because of the shifts i get (only 2). I pay for the gas and insurance on the car that my parents let me borrow. I can afford to pay speeding tickets and I am nowhere near rich. Keep in mind I'm talking about canadian currency. The standard fine in BC for speeding is about $150 for 10-20 above the limit. $250-300 for 20-30 above the limit. And about $550-600 for 40 or more above the limit. But just keep that in mind.
Greadius
:yeah:
The fine part of the punishment isn't vital to its accord. First and foremost, the biggest hassle with getting pulled over is that act within itself. Although an officer can guess income by car types (in general), it is not an exact figure. So, for a police department to maintain itself all it needs to do is pull over every limo they see for minor traffic infractions and should be set.
However, immunity to the law would imply because they are wealthy they can drive as fast as they want. A fine is still a fine, and rich people take their money very seriously. By the same tense of logic, someone is flat broke would be immune from speeding tickets as well. You're essentially approaching it from an issue of individual punishment; that is, trying to create a standard amount of damage inflicted upon the individual based on their lives. This flies in the face of application of laws since Hammurabi's time in that the application is blind, and the individual is being punished in accordance to his damage to society and not to the amount of damage one can inflict on the individual as a result. Punishment is no longer the guise of righting the wrong but hurting the criminal.
Oh, and if they're really so rich $100 means nothing to them they can just bribe the police to go away and still save money.
Its individual, not equal.
The crime committed is equal, what this says is that the individual is not, and their DIFFERENCE in equality (for an identical crime) is ONLY their wealth. Why is it okay for the law to discriminate in ANY circumstance, including wealth?
Well, they ARE criminals.
But why is it unfair? Both of them committed the same crime, and both of them were punished in accordance to what society deems as a suitable recourse. Why does the crime because worse if a rich person commits it, simply because they can afford it? Does society have higher expectations of the wealthy, or demand more from them in terms of conduct or behavior? That would be so... elitist...
The punishment is equal and not based upon class. The law shouldn't take these things into account... that is why it is often portrayed as blind. Its an odd statement of goals to say the pursuit of justice is the place to wage class warfare.
Yet, legal history and all the laws written on our books work from the assumption that punishment is doled out in proportion to damage to society, not damage the the individual. We're not a masochistic society when dealing with criminals, even if you do gain a perverse pleasure from seeing the rich squirm.
I don't particularly agree with age discrimination, but at least that is based on a better logic that assumes the responsibility of the individual is less, so the damage (and danger) to society is curbed by the criminal, therefore the punishment can be lighter.
I'm sure they like the idea because to them, being rich IS a crime.
What gave you that notion?
Furry Spatula: The several fines and you lose your license, seam to be a good system, I'm however not aware that we have it in Sweden.
Re-Post
Besides, if it is unfair to fine the rich more because that's not equal before the law; should it not then be illegal to have anything else then a public defender?
Well I believe everyone here can agree on that a higher price lawyer can get you a better sentence? That would mean that rich people got lower punishment because they can pay for it? Or Im I wrong here?
What gave you that notion?
Furry Spatula: The several fines and you lose your license, seam to be a good system, I'm however not aware that we have it in Sweden.
Re-Post
Besides, if it is unfair to fine the rich more because that's not equal before the law; should it not then be illegal to have anything else then a public defender?
Well I believe everyone here can agree on that a higher price lawyer can get you a better sentence? That would mean that rich people got lower punishment because they can pay for it? Or Im I wrong here?
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
How often do I and others have to say that?
If there's a set fee (the same!) for everyone who breaks some law that is equal justice.
1% of your annual income for everybody is always the same.
It would become individual if you'd say the one has to pay 1% and the other 57%, as it's done with taxes, that is individual.
What you don't get is that even this percentage fee may still advantage the one who has more money, as for him it may well be less of a loss.
The point of punishment is - well - punishment. And taking 100 $ from a millionaire would be the same as sentencing someone to death for attempting suicide.
In German courts for example, fees are usually (as far as I know) given as day's rates, which means it is according to your income.
And that is equal justice, as long as the same crime gives you the same amount of day's rates.
You have to think about the idea behind it. Instead of going to prison or to work directly for the community you work in your usual job for the community.
And that means that your income for the day goes to them, and of course the full income no matter how much you earn.
That is equal justice, everything else would mean that the more you earn the less days you have to serve, which would obviously be unequal.
Greadius
:yeah:
Wasn't speaking about you specifically.
Although if pressed on the matter...
Hiring a private attorney is irrelevant to the crime you're being charged with or the crime you've committed, so it is, in an impractical and theoretical sense, irrelevant to the case being tried.
What I'm searching for is a correllation between the crime & punishment; that is, why is it more damaging to society (and worth a greater numerical fine) for someone rich to break the law. Here, it doesn't matter if its a traffic ticket or murder, a rich guy or someone that can barely afford it, a private attorney can be used in all cases.
You're wrong. The correllation between the price of the attorney and the result is limited in most criminal cases, although that is very different for civil.
The reason is: most of the best attorneys are in it for the money, and the money isn't in criminal defense of the rich. It doesn't happen enough. As a result, the difference between criminal defense attorney's across the scale of price is marginally effective.
I'd dig up the study (from Texas I think) if I were inclined...
Uhm.. its NOT the same. Its based on income. In order to base punishment on income, in my opinion, you have to create a situation in where income effects the propensity to commit or severity of the crime. Without it, it is simply giving astronomical price tags to individuals who the government deems can afford it. Thats okay with taxes, but it is certainly not justice (unless you'd like to argue that taxes are just).
By being flexible with the percentage system in drawing this example you're proving my point: making the percentage the same doesn't make the punishment equal.
Irrelevant speculation. It shouldn't effect how busy someone is to how long they have to spend in prison. Why should it effect how rich someone is to how high their fine is. There is no correllation between punishment and private finances; the ability of them to pay ought to be completely irrelevant to charges.
In the dark ages, perhaps. That type of sadistic system of 'justice' only exists in the 3rd world today. But because it is soemone's money you're taking instead of their freedom or life, you believe it is justified to 'make them bleed'.
How do you figure?
Speculating about the reaction or pain of millionaires proves nothing to the discussion. It is irrelevant if they have a heart attack over it and miss an important meeting getting pulled over, or if they laugh it off and forget about it. Their reaction shouldn't determine the punishment. We'd find it completely unacceptable to force people who don't mind prison to stay longer, just so that we've gotten them to suffer as much as you hoped.
There is a clear, provable correllation there. The oppertunity cost of attending court is different, so the amount of money required is as well. You're paying for services rendered instead of a form of punishment.
Which is acceptable provided the individual has the choice of saying "Screw the community, I'm going to prison", because they still have more to gain by staying out. That extra utility of remaining out of prison and working their usual job is worth the extra find imposed on them as a result of the rate difference.
In line with that, the actual PUNISHMENT portion is DAYS SERVED, which is, as you said, not connected to how much money you make. It makes the presumption that the damage of the crime is unrelated to your wealth, and your wealth will therefore NOT factor in to the punishment for your crime. Very different circumstances to the speeding percentage where the crime is unrelated to your wealth, but the punishment is variable with your wealth.
Clear, provable correllation.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I said that as long as everybody gets the same percentage it is equal. I gave taxes as a counterexample, because there (usually) the percentages rise with the income.
The point is that the percentage system is not flexible in this case.
1% is 1% is 1%.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking of mere punishment, let's say you beat someone up and as this is your first crime they don't send you to prison but rather give you let's say 20 day's rates. Which means someone who earns 100$ a day would pay 2000 $ while someone who earns 1000$ would pay 20000 $.
And the point is that only this is equal, as they both serve the same amount of days for the community.
If the fee would be fixed that would mean that the one who earns more almost literally buys himself out of prison.
Well more or less. They should have that opportunity, although no sane person would use it.
Well, I'd always see it this way. The point is that you get indirect community work as a punishment (paid as the fee). On a fee itself (just to raise money for the government) you maybe right, but that's not how it should be seen, I think.
EdwardTking
Deity
Originally posted by Greadius [/i]
So, for a police department to maintain itself all it needs to do is pull over every limo they see for minor traffic infractions and should be set.
This is only true if a community sees the police service as a profit motivated activity and is foolish enough to use fines as a method of financing a police department.
However, immunity to the law would imply because they are wealthy they can drive as fast as they want.
A surprising number of celebrities seem to think exactly that.
"I am a succcess. I am driving a high performance car. I am a good driver. The speed limits only apply to ordinary people driving ordinary cars. I shall break them except where I know a camera is installed and just hope that I am not the first to be caught in a newly positioned camera."
..Rich people take their money very seriously./B]
Many rich people routinely speed and continue until disqualified
after which they drive illegally or hire a chauffer who they put under pressure to speed (go faster or I will replace you) until they kill someone or themselves first. Ordinary people are concerned that if they lose their license; they will lose their job and home. Rich people think that money can protect them so they drive faster.
By the same tense of logic, someone is flat broke would be immune from speeding tickets as well.
True; a pure % fine would result in such an absurdity. However in most administrations the % earnings is underpinned by
a flat minimum (and sometimes capped by a flat maximum).
Furthermore if a poor person repeatedly speeded; they could be gaoled instead. Indeed in most countries; a significant proportion of people in gaol are those who can not pay fines. On this matter I disagree for this reason with many who argue that poor people should never be imprisoned because they have not paid a fine.
You're essentially approaching it from an issue of individual punishment; that is, trying to create a standard amount of damage inflicted upon the individual based on their lives. This flies in the face of application of laws since Hammurabi's time in that the application is blind, and the individual is being punished in accordance to his damage to society and not to the amount of damage one can inflict on the individual as a result.
I don't agree with you. Most historic punishments; being flogged; having an ear or an arm cut off or execution etc were about administering precisely measured damage to individuals.
Punishment is no longer the guise of righting the wrong but hurting the criminal.
IMHO Punishment has never been about righting the wrong.
Compensation is about trying to right a wrong. In this respect
the US has a very different conception of damages. For instance in the UK; there are no civil court punitive damages; our judges having argued that punishment should be reserved for criminal courts. Punishment is about deterrence. Rich people are simply not deterred by small fines in the way that ordinary people are.
Oh, and if they're really so rich $100 means nothing to them they can just bribe the police to go away and still save money.
Not all police are bribable.
The crime committed is equal, what this says is that the individual is not, and their DIFFERENCE in equality (for an identical crime) is ONLY their wealth. Why is it okay for the law to discriminate in ANY circumstance, including wealth?
If the penalty is loss of one weeks net income and that is applied to rich, average and poor alike; that is not discrimination.
Consider if a person is sent to gaol for 10 years for stabbing someone they lose their liberty for ten years and ten years earnings. Now a high earner has lost more in cash terms than a low earner; but nobody says oh; because the rich person is losing 10 times as much money; he/she is being discrininated
and should therefore only spend 1 year in gaol.
The same principle applies to one week's loss of income
for speeding despite the fact that the $ amount varies.
Well, they ARE criminals. But why is it unfair? Both of them committed the same crime, and both of them were punished in accordance to what society deems as a suitable recourse.
Why does the crime because worse if a rich person commits it, simply because they can afford it?
The crime of speeding is not worse if a rich person does it.
Does society have higher expectations of the wealthy, or demand more from them in terms of conduct or behavior?
No; the wealthy can stick to the same speed linit as everyone else should.
The punishment is equal and not based upon class. The law shouldn't take these things into account... that is why it is often portrayed as blind. Its an odd statement of goals to say the pursuit of justice is the place to wage class warfare.
One week's loss of net wages for all is quite equal and has nothing to do with class warfare. A policy of high fixed rate fines that the poor can not pay and the rich do not notice would in my opinion be more akin to class warfare. Per centage earnings based fines are not a "we hate the rich conspiracy".
Yet, legal history and all the laws written on our books work from the assumption that punishment is doled out in proportion to damage to society, not damage the the individual. We're not a masochistic society when dealing with criminals, even if you do gain a perverse pleasure from seeing the rich squirm.
The predominant characteristics of laws and punishment in history is that laws are passed to protect the strong and that it is the ordinary and weaker individuals who get punished.
If you could make a compelling case that the rich speed callously because they can afford speeding tickets, perhaps you could make the case there is a correllation between wealth and the propensity to commit the crime, THEREFORE justifying that wealth be taken into account when punishing.
It my be different in Florida; but it is common knowledge that it is the better paid and wealthy people who speed most in England.
I know many well paid macho executive managers who speed regularly. Only yesterday Harriet Harman (UK Solicitor General)
was stopped for doing 99 mph in a 70 mph limit; and our extended royal family is notorious.
However, rather than doing that you argue, essentially, that the rich deserve to be punished more severely for the same crime simply because they 'can afford it'.
Not at all; one week's loss of wages is very much the same to all.
I don't hate the rich. Not all rich people speed. However the experience in Britain is that flat rate fines are unfair and do not work as far as deterring wealthy speeders is concerned.
Over the years we have changed the system several times.
From fine solely determined by offence; taking into account circumstances and ability to pay; to a pure % of earnings; to banding according to severity and earning within recomended ranges etc.
So, for a police department to maintain itself all it needs to do is pull over every limo they see for minor traffic infractions and should be set.
This is only true if a community sees the police service as a profit motivated activity and is foolish enough to use fines as a method of financing a police department.
However, immunity to the law would imply because they are wealthy they can drive as fast as they want.
A surprising number of celebrities seem to think exactly that.
"I am a succcess. I am driving a high performance car. I am a good driver. The speed limits only apply to ordinary people driving ordinary cars. I shall break them except where I know a camera is installed and just hope that I am not the first to be caught in a newly positioned camera."
..Rich people take their money very seriously./B]
Many rich people routinely speed and continue until disqualified
after which they drive illegally or hire a chauffer who they put under pressure to speed (go faster or I will replace you) until they kill someone or themselves first. Ordinary people are concerned that if they lose their license; they will lose their job and home. Rich people think that money can protect them so they drive faster.
By the same tense of logic, someone is flat broke would be immune from speeding tickets as well.
True; a pure % fine would result in such an absurdity. However in most administrations the % earnings is underpinned by
a flat minimum (and sometimes capped by a flat maximum).
Furthermore if a poor person repeatedly speeded; they could be gaoled instead. Indeed in most countries; a significant proportion of people in gaol are those who can not pay fines. On this matter I disagree for this reason with many who argue that poor people should never be imprisoned because they have not paid a fine.
You're essentially approaching it from an issue of individual punishment; that is, trying to create a standard amount of damage inflicted upon the individual based on their lives. This flies in the face of application of laws since Hammurabi's time in that the application is blind, and the individual is being punished in accordance to his damage to society and not to the amount of damage one can inflict on the individual as a result.
I don't agree with you. Most historic punishments; being flogged; having an ear or an arm cut off or execution etc were about administering precisely measured damage to individuals.
Punishment is no longer the guise of righting the wrong but hurting the criminal.
IMHO Punishment has never been about righting the wrong.
Compensation is about trying to right a wrong. In this respect
the US has a very different conception of damages. For instance in the UK; there are no civil court punitive damages; our judges having argued that punishment should be reserved for criminal courts. Punishment is about deterrence. Rich people are simply not deterred by small fines in the way that ordinary people are.
Oh, and if they're really so rich $100 means nothing to them they can just bribe the police to go away and still save money.
Not all police are bribable.
The crime committed is equal, what this says is that the individual is not, and their DIFFERENCE in equality (for an identical crime) is ONLY their wealth. Why is it okay for the law to discriminate in ANY circumstance, including wealth?
If the penalty is loss of one weeks net income and that is applied to rich, average and poor alike; that is not discrimination.
Consider if a person is sent to gaol for 10 years for stabbing someone they lose their liberty for ten years and ten years earnings. Now a high earner has lost more in cash terms than a low earner; but nobody says oh; because the rich person is losing 10 times as much money; he/she is being discrininated
and should therefore only spend 1 year in gaol.
The same principle applies to one week's loss of income
for speeding despite the fact that the $ amount varies.
Well, they ARE criminals. But why is it unfair? Both of them committed the same crime, and both of them were punished in accordance to what society deems as a suitable recourse.
Why does the crime because worse if a rich person commits it, simply because they can afford it?
The crime of speeding is not worse if a rich person does it.
Does society have higher expectations of the wealthy, or demand more from them in terms of conduct or behavior?
No; the wealthy can stick to the same speed linit as everyone else should.
The punishment is equal and not based upon class. The law shouldn't take these things into account... that is why it is often portrayed as blind. Its an odd statement of goals to say the pursuit of justice is the place to wage class warfare.
One week's loss of net wages for all is quite equal and has nothing to do with class warfare. A policy of high fixed rate fines that the poor can not pay and the rich do not notice would in my opinion be more akin to class warfare. Per centage earnings based fines are not a "we hate the rich conspiracy".
Yet, legal history and all the laws written on our books work from the assumption that punishment is doled out in proportion to damage to society, not damage the the individual. We're not a masochistic society when dealing with criminals, even if you do gain a perverse pleasure from seeing the rich squirm.
The predominant characteristics of laws and punishment in history is that laws are passed to protect the strong and that it is the ordinary and weaker individuals who get punished.
If you could make a compelling case that the rich speed callously because they can afford speeding tickets, perhaps you could make the case there is a correllation between wealth and the propensity to commit the crime, THEREFORE justifying that wealth be taken into account when punishing.
It my be different in Florida; but it is common knowledge that it is the better paid and wealthy people who speed most in England.
I know many well paid macho executive managers who speed regularly. Only yesterday Harriet Harman (UK Solicitor General)
was stopped for doing 99 mph in a 70 mph limit; and our extended royal family is notorious.
However, rather than doing that you argue, essentially, that the rich deserve to be punished more severely for the same crime simply because they 'can afford it'.
Not at all; one week's loss of wages is very much the same to all.
I don't hate the rich. Not all rich people speed. However the experience in Britain is that flat rate fines are unfair and do not work as far as deterring wealthy speeders is concerned.
Over the years we have changed the system several times.
From fine solely determined by offence; taking into account circumstances and ability to pay; to a pure % of earnings; to banding according to severity and earning within recomended ranges etc.
Phantom Lord
live by the sword
Legal and social systems may differ, OK. On the other hand eg tax systems can be considered both legal and social systems and in many states they treat you according to your income. I also think that a state has the right to define its own interpretation of equality and maybe the interpration is that equals are treated equal and unequals are not. A "rich" person can theoretically be judged unequal compared to a a "poor" person. Otherwise most tax laws would be considered completely illegal because they treat equal people unequal.
Well, I don't see why teens without income have to break speed limits using a car anyway, but I admit I did that too and was only lucky not to get fined for it
.Of course there should be a minimum fine, as someone already suggested. Pay 50 or 1 daily income per 10 km/h beyond the limit, whichever is more. Or simply don't speed at all if you fear the consequences, that's what the rule basically is there for, to keep it, not to discuss it. If a student with no income is speeding with daddy's car he's making a bet he can't cover.
First, I don't like the term "punishment". It's a damage payable to society, yes. There's a difference between the two IMHO. You've done something you shouldn't, you've endangered or disturbed other people in general, so you pay to society. A damage is considered punishment by the person who pays it, but that ain't the idea behind it. The idea is to bring things back to balance. If things can't be brought be back to balance or some equivalent of balance, say in case of capital crimes, then we're talking about punishment.
Second, of course it's a kind of fund raising, it's an income the state is planning with when calculating his budget for the next year. It wasn't meant to be this way, yes and of course I know this, but in reality it is, because reality is pragmantic sometimes.
I'd personally call the whole thing an insurance system if I use my basic knowledge of economical models - at least as far as traffic is concerned. You know people will break traffic laws, you know in some cases this will cost the state money, so you try to the get the cost back from those who are most likely to cause them.
Of course it is not my place to determine if he can live with it. But I didn't determine, I was guessing how I'd feel about it and made my opinion, which is my right. I'd personally prefer if my fine would be invested in education instead of weapons for example. Other people may have a different opinion. So everyone votes for the government that fits his point of view best. Maybe he votes for a government that promises fixed fines for speeding and maybe he doesn't. I don't know him personally so I can't tell. Nevertheless I am allowed to have my opinion about the situation, not the person.
That's absolutely correct.
But this is not.
The logical method to be taken into account is easy: If you would be sentenced to do 100 days of work for the community, you're income loss would be dependent on how much your normal income is in 100 days.
Btw that's exactly the logic on which eg the existing system in Finland is based on, they fine you with daily income.
[edit: tags/spelling]
Why should they get to choose to stay in prison? That doesnt make sense, if the punishment is work? Should people sentenced to prison be allowed to work it of too?
But Anyway, You do agree on that the system that judge you to a number of days of work is OK, right?
Ok, I take your word for it that lawyers don't have any real(large) effect in criminal court. Can only wonder why people pay large sums of money to high price lawyers then, guess they don't know better. You did however see to say that it did affect the outcome in civil court - then would this not be unequal?
Panda
Metal head
Precisely the same in Finland. Hence, I fail to see why it's not equal - going 30km/h over the speed limit costs you 5 days' wages. It treats every member of society equally, and is not 'targetted to milk the rich'.
Speeding tickets are, after all, given:
1.) To punish you for endangering traffic safety.
2.) To give you a reminder not do it again.
Therefor, if we would fix the fee for speeding at 100, we would establish an unequal system because for some people 100 is nothing, and the punishment looses it's shock and educational values.
I agree in so far that 100,000 for a speeding violation seems unproportional when compared to the magnitude of the crime, and maybe a maximum limit should be instated, i.e., '5 days' wages but no more than x', as has here recently been debated.
Greadius
:yeah:
A % of your income is not a fee, its a tax. A tax on crimes, although not an entirely bad idea in itself, is not what we're discussing here.
Right, and that is the key to understanding the difference between THIS example and the speeding/fine example. They're being given a stay from prison to give 20 days of community service back to the community. In America, for example, when community service is assigned it is often given in accordance to any special skill or ability the defendant has (that is why celebrities are often told to do anti-____ commercials). The punishment remains consistant, the difference is based on the ability of the defendant without COSTING the defendant any extra. Society, in the meantime, gains a net benefit from their specialized abilities as repayment.
Its not a fee, its a punishment. As you said above, its in leiu of going to prison, not instead of paying a fee. If the agreement was "You can work 20 days or pay a $500 fee" THEN you could argue that its based on their income. Instead, the government doles out the same punishment (20 days, for example) regardless of your income. Since something unrelated to the crime (your income) is not being taken into account to determine the severity of the punishment (# of days), its fair. And very different from the other example.
The police, like every other human with a pulse, is capable of corruption when the offer is too tempting.
And here I thought it was an intellectual conversation.
How many, precisely, is a 'surprising number' of celebrities, how did you read their mind, and where is your information coming from?
B.S.
Prove it. Any of it. Show me some data on percentage of speeding tickets given out in proportion to income, or traffic deaths in relation to income. Any shred of evidence other than your hate-the-rich rants that backs up what you're saying, and proves it isn't claptrap you're making up because punishing the rich gives you jollies.
Exactly, and those historic forms of punishments are considered sadistic and obsolete by civilized society and we don't use them anymore.
So you're agreeing the % is backsliding since its specific purpose is to cause measured damage to the individual?
In order to make that statement as a fact you have to prove that. You can only claim that based on the idea that an individual decision to speed is based on the possible consequences, and the wealthy don't take the consequences as seriously THEREFORE have a higher propensity to speed. If you can't prove it, don't pretend its true.
The point on damages, compensation is precisely what a fee is. You're covering the cost it took to enforce the law, and that cost is deemed as a great enough punishment as well. Road side executions would deter speeders more effectively, but society has determined that the punishment ought to fit the crime. Under what pretense is speeding worth $10,000?
You're discriminating based on income; that is EXACTLY what it is. You're saying that we're going to use your income to determine how to punish for the crime. Its a crime tax and not a fine, not a fee, and not punishment.The court does not consider their earnings or the lost revenue in the sentancing. You're arguing my point here. The court should not take the income of an individual into account when determing their punishment; if its murder (as you described) or speeding.
Its not the same, its discrimination. Case 1: The punishment is TIME IN PRISON. Case 2: The punishment is MONEY. Case one, you're saying the rich and the poor should go to jail for 10 years, I agree.
Case two, you're saying the rich should pay $10,000 and the poor should pay $100. I disagree.
Why not merge the two systems, and say you spend time in jail in proportion to your income. 1% of your income. Its obviously a stupid idea, since an individuals income has nothing to do with their choice to commit the crime (like speeding), nothing to do with their likeliness to repeat the crime (like speeding), nothing to do with how much punishment they should get for the crime (like speeding). The income of the individual has no correllation to the punishment they deserve, be it a fine or a prison sentance.
But $10,000 is more money.
You're making the law variable (i.e., includes a variable, in this case income) in determining punishment in order to hurt the individual at a predesignated amount. The goal is no longer compensating society, but hurting the individual. We don't punish like that.
Then why are we placing higher demands on them in compensating the courts & society for their crimes.
Unless you'd like to argue that 1% is a constant; its not. Its a variable. You can't fine someone 1%. You fine them 1% of income. You can't have variables in the application of law; it is no longer consistant, and it is no longer blind. It becomes superfluous and discriminatory like it was when punishment was done to hurt the individual and juries were a formality.
We're talking about modern laws in countries where the courts aren't a branch of the dictator/kings/emperors whim.
Back in ye olde days, you're right, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Common knowledge has the same ring to it as educated guessing.
I speed regularly too, and would pay next to nothing. Personal experience and individual examples aren't data, they're observations. Poor people don't make the news for speeding, so how do you expect to keep tabs on that as closely as you do the royal family or solicitor general. Your observations are useless in proving your point.
I'll ask this for God-knows-billionth time: what does someone's wages have to do with the crime they committed?
Not a bloody thing.
So why are we making it an issue in determing their punishment?
Still haven't proved this.
I'd expect a casual correllation in proportion to the fact that the wealthier will drive more (since the poor don't own vehicles/can't afford gas) that should create a small upwards slope in proportion to income, but a greater connection would have be shown to prove the rich speed because they can afford the fines.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well this may be a translation problem, but I don't think so.
I'll elaborate further in the next part.
The point is that every crime or "administrative offense" (I admit I looked up that translation
) like speeding, should be handled like that. I know that's not done like that usually, but that is wrong, because it is not equal justice.Every non-prison sentence should be given in day's rates. The severity of the offense or crime (of course beating someone up would give more than speeding) should only determine the amount of days, but not the difference between a day based sentence and a fixed fee, because the latter does not ensure equal justice.
If everybody would lose, let's say, three day's income for speeding that would be equal justice. But if one loses three day's income and another that of 20 minutes that is obviously not equal.
Of course that's a theoretical discussion, as there are also other means of punishment for speeding, like taking the license away.
I get the feeling that you are stuck on semantics Grideous (well that we all are) - like a % fine is WRONG, but a 5 day workday contribution to society is FINE.
The net effect is the same. A rich person will contribute with more wealth to society in either of the cases.
But if I have understood you right the last one is something you think is OK?
The net effect is the same. A rich person will contribute with more wealth to society in either of the cases.
But if I have understood you right the last one is something you think is OK?
Similar threads
