£180,000 speding fine . . .

[liquidchild76]

Muahaha fine based on your wealth.

More fines should be based like that, that way you can't just treat fines as some inconvenient fee to do what you want.

This.

 

[Rich_L]

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.

Someone's income has no effect on the impact of their crime. The impact of a punishment on someone's income on the other hand, affects the proportionate impact of the punishment, including the deterrent effect.

You seem to be assuming that for every crime there is a 'legal alternative' - if I punch someone in the face, the only 'legal alternative' is to not commit the crime.

The whole point is fines is it is an arbitrary punishment for a crime committed. As is any punishment for crimes which don't involve an aspect of financial loss - locking someone up for a month is an 'arbitrary punishment' is it not?

 

[Kenai]

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.

That's not a bad alternative, though still leaves the issue that initially it allows the rich to flaunt certain laws until the increases become a big enough deterrent, ie. similar to the level it would be in the first place with means tested fining.

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

Well yes but i've been discussing fines in general, i've already commented on how they are largely useless in terms of speeding anyway.

Things like parking on double yellows are prohibited for a reason yet currently if you're rich enough you can just buy your way out of such things. I recall a story a little while back about a council trying to stop a very rich local constantly parking wherever he liked because he just paid the fine like an expensive ticket and carried on.

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.

"and because he was a repeat offender."

It may well be the case that this has come about from a similar principle anyway, however with it being the Swiss with their contempt for cars, they got a bit of a sick of it and went for the jugular a bit quicker than slowly doubling.

 

[Dr Who]

This discussion is way too polarised.

There are 2 massively opposing schools of thought, and neither will come close to convincing the other side. May as well let it rest tbh.

 

[Dolph]

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.

I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they should be in a just society with just laws.

 

[The Running Man]

but with laws that are designed to hurt the lesser wealthy members of society?

but what is 'just' given that it is completely emotive and that one person could find one thing just and another something else entirely, i think you'd have to define your take on 'just' in this scenario

 

[arknor]

This discussion is way too polarised.

There are 2 massively opposing schools of thought, and neither will come close to convincing the other side. May as well let it rest tbh.

yea the rich ones who can afford the "FEES" dont want fines that are a percent of income

 

[Dolph]

but with laws that are designed to hurt the lesser wealthy members of society?

but what is 'just' given that it is completely emotive and that one person could find one thing just and another something else entirely, i think you'd have to define your take on 'just' in this scenario

As I said earlier, A just law is one that provides a meaningful reduction in social harm through a proportionate punishment to the harm.

A just law does not punish people arbitrarily, criminalise behaviour unnecessarily or use disproportionate measures to achieve the desired reduction in harm.

Bringing back to target, it could be argued that the speeding law in the UK is currently unjust, because the punishment is excessive to the level of risk involved and the associated costs of that risk (exceeding the speed limit is only responsible for circa 3% of accidents). Likewise it could be argued that the driving without due car and attention law is unjust, because that behaviour has a high impact on accident rates, and the punishments are relatively low in comparison to the costs.

Just laws also treat crimes equally, basing the punishment on the crime and the impact on the crime, rather than the criminal.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Rich_L]

To achieve a proportionate punishment to the harm, you need to consider the impact of the punishment on the individual.

If a punishment derived from the harm doesn't punish the individual, it isn't a punishment.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they should be in a just society with just laws.

Why do they need to be, to have a just society? that does not make any sense. You are saying you should be able to spend your way above the law, that is not just or fair, in any sense.

Ignore speeding and take any other crime you feel has any real social damage. Do you think that should be a fixed fine, which people can pay their way out of. Or where prison isn't a suitable punishment a just punishment takes into consideration, income/wealth and is a percentage and thus effects everyone equally.

 

[Dolph]

To achieve a proportionate punishment to the harm, you need to consider the impact of the punishment on the individual.

If a punishment derived from the harm doesn't punish the individual, it isn't a punishment.

Hence the scaling aspect for repeat offenders. That way you are still basing your punishment on the crime, not the criminal.

Why do they need to be, to have a just society? that does not make any sense. You are saying you should be able to spend your way above the law, that is not just or fair, in any sense.

See above, and consider whether you think people should be treated differently for the same crime. What other aspects should we treat people differently on? Should we treat women differently to men who commit the same crime? Homeowners different from renters? Christians different from atheists?

The cost and impact of the crime does not change (in most cases) depending on the criminal, so why should the resultant treatment?

Edit for your edit:

Ignore speeding and take any other crime you feel has any real social damage. Do you think that should be a fixed fine, which people can pay their way out of. Or where prison isn't a suitable punishment a just punishment takes into consideration, income/wealth and is a percentage and thus effects everyone equally.

The punishment should be related to the crime, not the criminal. Costs of the crime (which can include enforcement) plus a multiplication factor for deterrent and a multiplication for repeat offences does that. If you take income/wealth into account, what else should you take into account? We already have problems where men and women are treated differently by the criminal justice system due to the idea that some punishments (such as being separated from family) are worse for women. Is that fair? Do we have to assess all punishments for the impact on the individual? should all punishments be determined by the criminal, not the crime?

 

[Glaucus]

See above, and consider whether you think people should be treated differently for the same crime. ?

where have I said treat people differently?
I am treating everyone the same, teh same percentage.

why are you treating people differently, that £60 is a lot bigger % than to a millionaire, who else are you treating differently?

The cost and impact of the crime does not change (in most cases) depending on the criminal, so why should the resultant treatment?

Fines are not based on cost, they are based on punishment and deterrent, therefore a % is fair and just as it achieves the same outcome to all people.

 

[Kenai]

Hence the scaling aspect for repeat offenders. That way you are still basing your punishment on the crime, not the criminal.

That still effectively allows the rich to offend more than others up until the fine reaches a level where by it provides a deterrent.

Why not just use means testing to ensure that level is ascertained right off the bat and then you will deter everyone equally, all the time?

With repeat increases you will effectively just change the problem of 'the rich can buy themselves above laws' to 'the rich can buy themselves above laws for only a few times'.

 

[Rich_L]

Hence the scaling aspect for repeat offenders. That way you are still basing your punishment on the crime, not the criminal.

If you are accepting the principle of escalating fines providing an increased deterrent, then it must surely follow that someone's 'ability to pay' will affect the deterrent effect of any crime, as paying a lesser amount (proportionately) will be a lesser deterrent.

Rather, why not base your punishment on the crime, with a form of multiplier/increase based on ability to pay to ensure the deterrent effect applies equally to all individuals?

Or basically, what they do now

Do we have to assess all punishments for the impact on the individual? s

In a just society with just punishment, yes this should happen.

 

[Dolph]

where have I said treat people differently?
I am treating everyone the same, teh same percentage.

Then you aren't basing the fine on the cost of the crime. You allow the poor to cause a disproportionate impact on society with their crimes because their fines are not related to the damage they cause. I advocate responsibility for actions, which means bearing the cost of your actions correctly.

why are you treating people differently, that £60 is a lot bigger % than to a millionaire, who else are you treating differently?

The impact of a crime does not vary by %, so why should the punishment, unless you're back to basing the punishment on the criminal, not the crime.

Fines are not based on cost, they are based on punishment and deterrent, therefore a % is fair and just as it achieves the same outcome to all people.

They aren't, but as I've said, they should be. Punishment should be related to the crime, not the criminal or other arbitary factors.

 

[Rich_L]

Do you not understand, that for punishment to relate to the crime, it must have the same effect?

 

[Glaucus]

Then you aren't basing the fine on the cost of the crime. You allow the poor to cause a disproportionate impact on society with their crimes because their fines are not related to the damage they cause. I advocate responsibility for actions, which means bearing the cost of your actions correctly.

And you allow greater social damage as people can pay there way out of a crime, a fine is not entirely based on cost. Something you think it should be, I have no idea why. If it was based on cost it would be a fee payable if you caused harm. Things like speeding cause no harm till something goes wrong. But I hope you agree although the war on speeding should be stopped, that speeding should remain illegal and be punished, even when no harm has been caused. Because there is an increased chance of harm.

Do you also agree that a fine say of £100 is much more of a deterrent/punishment to someone who earns £300 a week compared to some one who earns £600 a week.

Do you agree that fines should be a deterrent and you should not be able to pay your way above the law.

The impact of a crime does not vary by %, so why should the punishment, unless you're back to basing the punishment on the criminal, not the crime.
.

I'm not basing it on the criminal, I'm basing it on deterrent. Where a fine is means tested to keep it fair and a maximum limit is set, so petty crimes do not exceed punishment for a bigger crime.

a % does not care what the criminal earns, I am not distinguishing between anyone. You with fixed fines however are distinguishing between the criminals and saying people should be free to pay their way out.

 

[Kenai]

Basically the fundamental difference is this:

1) You see fines as a method for deterring an individual from commiting a crime

2) You see fines as a method of recouping costs in the event of an individual commiting a crime

I sit firmly in camp 1 as I believe trying to prevent an action is better than merely mopping up after it. From this perspecitive I don't see how fines can be any better or more fairly applied than with means testing. Obviously in some cases the deterrent may be better applied by another method (such as points) and in those cases, moving the deterrent away from financial means is massively preferable.

 

[Dolph]

That still effectively allows the rich to offend more than others up until the fine reaches a level where by it provides a deterrent.

Why not just use means testing to ensure that level is ascertained right off the bat and then you will deter everyone equally, all the time?

Because someone's wealth has no more impact on the effect of their crime on society than their gender or skin colour? I don't believe in arbitrary discrimination in any form.

With repeat increases you will effectively just change the problem of 'the rich can buy themselves above laws' to 'the rich can buy themselves above laws for only a few times'.

And under a means tested system, you have a system where the poor can commit crimes without being responsible for the actual consequences of them.

If you are accepting the principle of escalating fines providing an increased deterrent, then it must surely follow that someone's 'ability to pay' will affect the deterrent effect of any crime, as paying a lesser amount (proportionately) will be a lesser deterrent.

Rather, why not base your punishment on the crime, with a form of multiplier/increase based on ability to pay to ensure the deterrent effect applies equally to all individuals?

Or basically, what they do now

Because I don't believe in arbitrary discrimination based on unrelated factors?

In a just society with just punishment, yes this should happen.

Surely the punishment should be based on the crime and it's effect on society, not the criminal? I know I keep bringing this up, but I can't understand the position that the criminal, not the crime, should determine the punishment given the purpose of the legal system should be to balance the rights of the individual with the impact of the actions of the individual on society, and to control/provide protection against actions that cause harm to society or infringe on the rights of other individuals. At no point in that does the criminal come in to the calculation of the crime, so I cannot see why the criminal should come into the punishment for the crime.

 

[Rich_L]

Because the whole CONCEPT of PUNISHMENT is based about the impact ON THE INDIVIDUAL!

If a punishment does not punish the individual, it is not a punishment.

It's like telling a man with no legs and no arms to stay in one place as a 'punishment'...

Christ!