£180,000 speding fine . . .

[[TW]Fox]

Well no, since if you earned nothing you wouldn't be able to afford to be a motorist.

There are numerous people on the roads with no income yet a car.

 

[The Running Man]

Because that's fair?

The notion that some people seem to have that financially equalizing everyone is a both a viable and good idea is idiotic.

fair? the punishment is designed to dissuade the offender from repeating the offence...

if they fined him £200 and 3 points it has virtually zero impact.

this sends a message that it is not fine for playboys to race through speed restricted areas in the country in question.

Maybe if we fined our own public more stringently like this it would help to reduce speeding?

 

[Biohazard]

Silly law. As Fox says why not have means tested pricing for consumer goods?

As usual jealousy and envy is rife in the UK.

I'd have to be jealous of my family, and that certainly isn't the case I can assure you. Hell, i've been on soo many holidays since I've been a child around the world that I would otherwise not have the chance to.. cost me nothing (apart from a thankyou meal or whatever). I'm lucky as hell!

I feel those with that view like to brush it off as jealousy for the fear that the protection money can bring might becoming encroached upon.. even if it is a 'trivial' act of repeat motoring fines.

 

[[TW]Fox]

if they fined him £200 and 3 points it has virtually zero impact.

3 points has an awful lot of impact - virtually all countries methods of speeding enforcement carry more than just a monetary penalty.

How many people in here are dissauded from speeding by the £60 fine? Very few I guess. I dont not speed excessively because I'm worried about the fine - I do it because I'm worried about points.

 

[shauncr91]

Why should there be justice in it just because he earns more than you or I?

Because he can afford to do it everyday if it's a set price for everybody and will in no way be deterred from doing it everyday, where as if we did it everyday we'd probably soon be bankrupt.

 

[Scuzi]

Fines in this country are already means tested to some degree. When I prosecuted for careless driving about 5 years ago, I had to produce my previous three pay slips for them to calculate the fine.

Whilst I can see the logic in it, it is unfair and it is going down the road of penalising the successful for working hard and rewarding the poor for not, which in my opinion, is not how a country should be run.

Maybe a punishment other than a monetary fine would be a fairer option, especially for a repeat offender. Community service?

 

[shauncr91]

Whilst I can see the logic in it, it is unfair and it is going down the road of penalising the successful for working hard and rewarding the poor for not, which in my opinion, is not how a country should be run.

But it isn't though, is it. As I illustrated in my first post of this thread.

 

[stockhausen]

... it is unfair and it is going down the road of penalising the successful for working hard and rewarding the poor for not ...

From where do you get the idea that the Swiss millionaire was being penalised for working hard

I was under the impression that he was penalised for persistently breaking the law.

Switzerland is not generally known for its dislike of the rich and successful, is it?

 

[Conscript]

The punishment should be (as it is here) 'If you speed at X in Y, you will receive a fine of £Y'. Not 'You will be caused x% hardship, ha ha ha'.

Just because he bothered to put some effort in and do well for himself does not mean the cost of things should be inflated to such a level that he needn't have bothered.

But it depends how the fine is used, surely? I would have thought the idea of a fine is to provide a financial punishment as a deterrent against doing it again. In which case, it makes sense to base the fine on your financial status.

If they only charged him £100 quid each time, he'd laugh in their face and toss them the money as he speeds off to do 85MPH through a village again, safe int he knowledge that it if he's caught again, the only "punishment" is something he can afford out of pocket change.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Why not make it size 5? It's still irrelevent.

This sort of scheme is ridiculous. As muncher points out, if you earn nothing are fines free?

As usual jealousy and envy is rife in the UK.

Because it is a fine. It is supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. If you have a lot of money, the fine becomes less of a punishment and more importantly, less of a deterrent.

Silly law. As Fox says why not have means tested pricing for consumer goods?

That doesn't make one bit of sense, and is irrelevant to the subject. A fine is an institutionalised punishment and deterrent. The trade and consumption of goods and services is not.

 

[shauncr91]

Because it is a fine. It is supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. If you have a lot of money, the fine becomes less of a punishment and more importantly, less of a deterrent.


That doesn't make one bit of sense, and is irrelevant to the subject. A fine is an institutionalised punishment and deterrent. The trade and consumption of goods and services is not.

Spot on.

 

[Spie]

Because it is a fine. It is supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. If you have a lot of money, the fine becomes less of a punishment and more importantly, less of a deterrent.


That doesn't make one bit of sense, and is irrelevant to the subject. A fine is an institutionalised punishment and deterrent. The trade and consumption of goods and services is not.

So why not charge rich people more for goods and services? It's really not on that they are effectively paying an insignificant amount for electricity and gas for example.

After all, then can afford it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Because he can afford to do it everyday if it's a set price for everybody and will in no way be deterred from doing it everyday, where as if we did it everyday we'd probably soon be bankrupt.

If he did it every day he'd be an ex-millionare as he'd be in jail.

Just like if we speed 4 times in a row we'd lose our license.

Because it is a fine. It is supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. If you have a lot of money, the fine becomes less of a punishment and more importantly, less of a deterrent.

But isnt that just... how the cookie crumbles? Some people manage to work hard enough to become very wealthy. As a result, things which to the rest of us are a lot of money no longer are. We shouldnt build laws around that!

 

[shauncr91]

So why not charge rich people more for goods and services? It's really not on that they are effectively paying an insignificant amount for electricity and gas for example.

After all, then can afford it.

He's answered that in the first line of his post. How are you comparing utilitarian bills to punishment for breaking the law? Do you look at your gas bill as a punishent for using the heating and see it as a way to deter from keeping your house warm?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Shall we not jail unemployed people for some offences because being jailed when you dont have a job isnt quite as bad as being jailed in the middle of a career?

After all, we should make every punishment 'equal' right?

 

[Kenai]

But isnt that just... how the cookie crumbles? Some people manage to work hard enough to become very wealthy. As a result, things which to the rest of us are a lot of money no longer are. We shouldnt build laws around that!

So basically, if you're rich and the punishment for breaking a law is only some type of fine, you're essentially allowed to do it because you've made yourself so rich you can pay the fine without even thinking about it?

If a fine is not intended to function as a deterrent then it may as well be called a fee.

 

[mjt]

and this is why you don't speed in switzerland

 

[Lum]

"The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa"
"Pic of a 599"

Would it be that hard to get a correct picture?

Yes, everyone knows they look like this

 

[Spie]

He's answered that in the first line of his post. How are you comparing utilitarian bills to punishment for breaking the law? Do you look at your gas bill as a punishent for using the heating and see it as a way to deter from keeping your house warm?

It is that difficult? The concept of fairness perhaps? Not that I agree of course.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

But isnt that just... how the cookie crumbles? Some people manage to work hard enough to become very wealthy. As a result, things which to the rest of us are a lot of money no longer are. We shouldnt build laws around that!

Criminal laws that describe punishments are there mostly as a deterrent. Therefore, the law fails if the deterrent doesn't exist - which is the case here.

He was a repeat offender - it was obvious the deterrent was not working. So they levied a fine to deter him in the future (and many others).