£180,000 speding fine . . .

[The Running Man]

That wasn't the question I asked. What road safety benefit does this massive fine provide, given the very limited impact exceeding the speed limit has on road safety in the first place?

Harman should have been banned from driving, driving without due care and attention causes far more accidents than speeding ever will.

your question is seeking an answer that you do not think exists...

it deters the same person from speeding, one less person speeding = a safer road for everyone else.

plus they could invest that £180,000 into Road traffic schemes to do some good?

but if u want to simply raise objections and not think about it objectively then that is your perogative.

 

[Glaucus]

That wasn't the question I asked. What road safety benefit does this massive fine provide, given the very limited impact exceeding the speed limit has on road safety in the first place?

A better question is ignore speeding and apply the logic to all the other fines that are means tested. Are they stupid?

from my point of view means testing is a good way where fines are the main punishment/deterrent.

 

[Conscript]

That wasn't the question I asked. What road safety benefit does this massive fine provide, given the very limited impact exceeding the speed limit has on road safety in the first place?

Very little. But whether or not speeding has an actual detriental effect on road safety is a seperate argument entirely. The argument is whether or not this fine is justified given the offence committed. Whether or not the offence itself is fair punishment given the objective of road safety is irrelevant; he got caught and has been forced to pay up.

If we put that point aside however, and say for argument sake that speeding does have a direct correlation with road safety, then you could say that this fine acts as a deterrant by ensuring (hopefully) that he wont offend again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

In the eyes of our law its not justified, which is why 75 in a 50 in a Ferrari in this country wont give you a £180,000 fine.

 

[Glaucus]

In the eyes of our law its not justified, which is why 75 in a 50 in a Ferrari in this country wont give you a £180,000 fine.

But we have point's they don't. however we do have crimes which are enforced with fines the majority of the time, these are means tested. Or is that wrong and the same as goods/services

 

[Dolph]

your question is seeking an answer that you do not think exists...

it deters the same person from speeding, one less person speeding = a safer road for everyone else.

plus they could invest that £180,000 into Road traffic schemes to do some good?

but if u want to simply raise objections and not think about it objectively then that is your perogative.

I care about laws and judgements that provide meaningful improvements in road safety and punishment proportional to the actual risk. I don't see how this judgement achieves either of those aims.

If you think the law's job is something else, that's your choice, but it doesn't make it a good or fair law.

 

[Dolph]

Very little. But whether or not speeding has an actual detriental effect on road safety is a seperate argument entirely. The argument is whether or not this fine is justified given the offence committed. Whether or not the offence itself is fair punishment given the objective of road safety is irrelevant; he got caught and has been forced to pay up.

I would argue that the aspect of whether the law has any beneficial effects on road safety, or whether the punishment is relative to the risk increase, is vitally important for deciding whether the punishment is just.

A law being in place doesn't mean that being punished under it is just.

If we put that point aside however, and say for argument sake that speeding does have a direct correlation with road safety, then you could say that this fine acts as a deterrant by ensuring (hopefully) that he wont offend again.

But it doesn't, that's the point...

That's like saying 'putting aside the fact that the country is massively in debt, we could just give everyone £1m and then they'd be happy', it's a ludicrous position to take.

 

[Dolph]

A better question is ignore speeding and apply the logic to all the other fines that are means tested. Are they stupid?

from my point of view means testing is a good way where fines are the main punishment/deterrent.

Means testing isn't a fair approach to law enforcement. The fine should be proportionate to the social harm done, not the individuals income.

Fining someone £50 for £1000 worth of harm is as bad as fining someone £1000 for £50 worth of harm. Even if you want to charge double the harm as a punative fine, it still doesn't change the criteria that it should not be based on income, because someone's income has no bearing on the harm caused by a crime in the vast majority of cases (celebrities and well known public figures being the exception, but that is factored into the harm calculation, rather than loaded on afterwards)

 

[Glaucus]

Means testing isn't a fair approach to law enforcement. The fine should be proportionate to the social harm done, not the individuals income.

Fining someone £50 for £1000 worth of harm is as bad as fining someone £1000 for £50 worth of harm.

How is it not fair? you can not license everything.

Fining everyone £50, some people wouldn't eat for a week, whilst others wouldn't mind breaking the law and would consider it to be a fee.

Just like once someone is banned, giving points is not a detterant. Other than locking them up or community service, there is little other than a fine, which is allready means tested, with an upper limit.

it is not a fee for damage, it is a punishment/deterrent.

 

[Rich_L]

Isn't a punishment also supposed to have some element of deterrent effect, rather than just compensation for the 'social harm'?

(hence the points system at present, rather than exclusively fines).

I think it's perfectly reasonable that punishments are adjusted to have the same proportionate effect on the individual, to the extent I find it hard to understand why such a concept is seen as so unreasonable.

Using an analogy of say, price-fixing, if a fixed fee of £100,000 was imposed on companies engaging in price-fixing, your small business would be put out of business in an instant, your multi-million pound company would consider it simply a 'cost of doing business'.

 

[Dolph]

Isn't a punishment also supposed to have some element of deterrent effect, rather than just compensation for the 'social harm'?

See my edit, doubling the social harm cost can act as an easy deterrent effect.

 

[Glaucus]

See my edit, doubling the social harm cost can act as an easy deterrent effect.

Not if it is throw away money. It would be treated like a fee or permit, not a fine.

 

[Dolph]

How is it not fair? you can not license everything.

You don't have to. It's not fair however because people are treated differently for the same crime due to entirely unrelated circumstances.

Fining everyone £50, some people wouldn't eat for a week, whilst others wouldn't mind breaking the law and would consider it to be a fee.

Then multiply it each time if they don't learn, but don't take unrelated aspects into account and punish them for it. Punish them for the law, not their income.

Just like once someone is banned, giving points is not a detterant. Other than locking them up or community service, there is little other than a fine, which is allready means tested, with an upper limit.

I doubt we're going to agree, but I can't ever see how treating two criminals differently due to aspects that had nothing to do with their crime can ever be considered reasonable or fair.

 

[Kenai]

See my edit, doubling the social harm cost can act as an easy deterrent effect.

But it can't though. If someone is raking in £500k a year, a parking fine for example will be virtually no deterrent to them whether its £30 or £60. Yet to you or I it would constitute a fairly significant dent to your monthly disposable income.

Why should people who earn lots of money be able to effectively buy themselves above certain laws?

Ideally deterrents wouldn't be based on financial means (as is the case with driving license points for motoring offences) but seeing as no one has otherwise managed to suggest a practical alternative to fines in general, means tested is a better system for acting as a deterrent than flat rate is.

 

[Rich_L]

See my edit, doubling the social harm cost can act as an easy deterrent effect.

In which case if you accept the principle of a punishment incorporating a deterrent element, then surely you need to ensure the deterrent is equal to all individuals - which means you need to consider the proportionate impact of the deterrent aspect.

 

[Glaucus]

You don't have to. It's not fair however because people are treated differently for the same crime due to entirely unrelated circumstances.
.

It's not different, it's a % of income. Meaning everyone feels the same financial effects. that is fair.

Otherwise You get people who ignore the law and use as if it was a fee.

You can't license everything in life, that is silly.

 

[The Running Man]

I care about laws and judgements that provide meaningful improvements in road safety and punishment proportional to the actual risk. I don't see how this judgement achieves either of those aims.

If you think the law's job is something else, that's your choice, but it doesn't make it a good or fair law.

you talk too much about what is fair.

Who said this law was to provide meaningful improvements in road safety? Thats your interpretation of their objective, perhaps you are misguided in this?

a law that can provide a punishment that befits the crime and attempts to try and stop repeat offences from occuring is a law that is fair and good.

Are you trying to say that variable fines are a bad thing?

of course their needs to be low thresholds so that no one can get charged 0p or something stupid, but if the person has billions of pounds and you fine them £300 how does that deter them from repeat offending?


IF fining is used as a punishment it has to be relatively painful for the recipient to pay out because otherwise you have effectively created a superwealthy class who can buy their way out of any trouble and continue to offend unabated.

you know... kinda like we have in this country.

 

[Dolph]

Isn't a punishment also supposed to have some element of deterrent effect, rather than just compensation for the 'social harm'?

(hence the points system at present, rather than exclusively fines).

I think it's perfectly reasonable that punishments are adjusted to have the same proportionate effect on the individual, to the extent I find it hard to understand why such a concept is seen as so unreasonable.

Using an analogy of say, price-fixing, if a fixed fee of £100,000 was imposed on companies engaging in price-fixing, your small business would be put out of business in an instant, your multi-million pound company would consider it simply a 'cost of doing business'.

Just to pick up your edit:

It isn't about fixed fees, it is about fees proportionate to the harm caused, there is a difference.

 

[Dolph]

But it can't though. If someone is raking in £500k a year, a parking fine for example will be virtually no deterrent to them whether its £30 or £60. Yet to you or I it would constitute a fairly significant dent to your monthly disposable income.

Why should people who earn lots of money be able to effectively buy themselves above certain laws?

I never said they should, that is why I would happily advocate the multiplication of fines for repeat offences, doubling the previous fine should do on each occasion.

Ideally deterrents wouldn't be based on financial means (as is the case with driving license points for motoring offences) but seeing as no one has otherwise managed to suggest a practical alternative to fines in general, means tested is a better system for acting as a deterrent than flat rate is.

Ideally deterrents should be restricted to behaviour that actually needs deterring, but that doesn't happen under our current setup...

In which case if you accept the principle of a punishment incorporating a deterrent element, then surely you need to ensure the deterrent is equal to all individuals - which means you need to consider the proportionate impact of the deterrent aspect.

I ask again, what impact does someone's income have on the effect of their crime?

I think you also miss the reason why the cost of the crime is doubled to provide deterrent, it is to make the legal alternative much more attractive than the crime, not the arbitrarily punish the individual concerned.

If people repeatedly commit crimes, deal with that through repetition increases, fines would quickly become unaffordable even if you only doubled the previous fine each time, unless of course the impact of the harm was negligible in the first place, but then it's debatable whether the law should be in place at all.

It's not different, it's a % of income. Meaning everyone feels the same financial effects. that is fair.

Otherwise You get people who ignore the law and use as if it was a fee.

You can't license everything in life, that is silly.

Hence the multiplication of fines for repeat offences. Again, the financial cost of the crime doesn't change with the individual's income in the vast majority of cases (the exception being those with widespread public influence).

 

[Glaucus]

Again, the financial cost of the crime doesn't change with the individual's income in the vast majority of cases

Since when was fines based on coast. They are a deterrent. Does speeding at 100mph really cost £400 compared to £60 for 80mph.

if it was based on cost, it would be a fee a charge payable for damage. it is not, it is a fine a deterrent/punishment.