Serves him right

Gaijin said:
This is what I believe, but this will probably descend into the usual anti rich bashing farce.

For what it's worth I think the punishment is too extravagant, but I believe you should be fined a percentage of your wage for instance. It's not about punishing the rich for their success, it's about an using an acceptable deterrant to punish idiots.

It's a punishment at the end of the day, and how much the law affects you shouldn't be scalable due to your wealth.
Click to expand...

But the law is supposed to be there to correct harm, not to punish. The actual level of harm caused (or risk increase caused) is completely independent of income, and therefore income should not be considered when determining punishment. This works both ways, the poor should not receive reduced fines because they are poor, and the rich should not receive increased fines just because they are rich. The fine should be the same for the same crime.

Thats fair enough, but a seperate issue.
Click to expand...

Not really where speeding laws are concerned, the enforcement of speeding laws, in both the UK and Sweden, is completely independent of any actual benefit or need.
 
like the idea of him being fine higher due to his salary, as it will definately make anyone think twice if the fine amount is dependant on wealth for example

if joe blogs with a 13k salary after tax gets fined £50 to £200 & points they will wish they was'nt stupid but if high paid mr wonga gets the same fine he will just think ahh peanuts and just take the points on the chin.
 
WHAT!!! said:
if joe blogs with a 13k salary after tax gets fined £50 to £200 & points they will wish they was'nt stupid but if high paid mr wonga gets the same fine he will just think ahh peanuts and just take the points on the chin.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an incentive to work harder ;)
 
WHAT!!! said:
like the idea of him being fine higher due to his salary, as it will definately make anyone think twice if the fine amount is dependant on wealth for example

if joe blogs with a 13k salary after tax gets fined £50 to £200 & points they will wish they was'nt stupid but if high paid mr wonga gets the same fine he will just think ahh peanuts and just take the points on the chin.
Click to expand...

Since when did justice depend on circumstances? Justice should be blind to irrelevant factors such as race, religion, gender, income and so on...
 
Dolph said:
Justice should be blind to irrelevant factors such as race, religion, gender, income and so on...
Click to expand...

If Justice is supposed to be blind, then surely it should affect all people equally? i.e. a fine being a percentage of your income.

Otherwise justice isn't blind at all because the rich get let off comparatively lightly.
 
Dolph said:
But the law is supposed to be there to correct harm, not to punish. The actual level of harm caused (or risk increase caused) is completely independent of income, and therefore income should not be considered when determining punishment. This works both ways, the poor should not receive reduced fines because they are poor, and the rich should not receive increased fines just because they are rich. The fine should be the same for the same crime.
Click to expand...

That may well be how it exists here, but I don't agree with it.

In this and many other cases, no harm was done - the fine for all intents and purposes, is a punishment and deterrent, regardless of what the established official reason is for.

Technically speaking the fine for poorer people isn't "reduced" - it's proportional.

You can't argue that a speeding punishment for a person earning minimum wage isn't more severe than someone on £100k a year. Severity shouldn't be based on your success surely - where you escape punishment when you screw up because you've done well in life or got dealt a good set of cards?

I earn a pretty good wage but if I'm penalised for speeding, I don't care about the £60 fine that much. The deterrant for me is the points, because they can potentially cost me more money that the fine and more importantly potentially inconvenience me a lot - I.e. contribute to the loss of my license - something that would inconvenience me more than a monetary fine - and which is a blanket punishment for all people, regardless of their wealth or social status.
 
Last edited:
We had the same principle in the UK about 15 years ago for motoring offences, pretty sure it was scrapped but not sure who did it.
IMO its absolutely correct, the fine has to be proportional and in relation to your ability to pay when the penalty is supposed to be a "deterrent"
As said £60 isn't going to worry most loaded people, even the points are a mute point unless they are close to a ban since they probably don't care about the insurance premium either.
Put yourself in the position of a city fat cat, you earn £500k per annum, do you care about a £60 fine? ofc not, so a bit late leaving for home, "blah I will toe it and take the risk of a few insurance points". Now lets apply a case of ability to pay to the same offence, lets say they take £50k as "living expenses" and fine you a months "disposable" income, now that would make that chap take note for sure.
Personally I think in the UK serious motoring offences should always be punishable by litter collecting at the side of a busy dual carridgeway. Forget age, sex, ability to pay, the thought of a few days dressed in high vis at the edge of one of them roads picking up plastic bottles (and worse) may make a few more think about excessive speeding or reckless driving if they knew that was coming their way.
 
Captain_Slick said:
If Justice is supposed to be blind, then surely it should affect all people equally? i.e. a fine being a percentage of your income.

Otherwise justice isn't blind at all because the rich get let off comparatively lightly.
Click to expand...

If justice was blind it would not know your income....
 
This is why the whole concept of fines is flawed, and moreover people just see them as a tool for revenue raising. At least with points the punishment is equal regardless of wealth. Speeding in Switzerland though, of ALL places to do it ...
 
:(.


How can anyone think such a fine is a good idea :confused:, I simply don't understand.

He didn't hurt anyone or anything, why don't thieves and vandals get these types of punishment.
 
Captain_Slick said:
If Justice is supposed to be blind, then surely it should affect all people equally? i.e. a fine being a percentage of your income.

Otherwise justice isn't blind at all because the rich get let off comparatively lightly.
Click to expand...

Justice is supposed to be related to the crime, not the criminal. Changing the punishment for the crime implies that the crime is more or less valuable depending on who committed it. This is simply untrue.

Of course, a better solution would be to get rid of victimless crimes entirely, and get rid of punative fines and replace them with something else :)
 
Skii said:
This is why the whole concept of fines is flawed, and moreover people just see them as a tool for revenue raising. At least with points the punishment is equal regardless of wealth. Speeding in Switzerland though, of ALL places to do it ...
Click to expand...

But with points, the punishment isn't equal!

Mr. minimum wage gets 6 points - his insurance doubles and he struggles to afford it.

Mr. £150k a year gets 6 points - his insurance doubles and he doesn't notice it.

The *only* way to effectively penalise people (equally) is by means tested penalties. The concept of points is great, but in practice more points equals higher motoring costs which doesn't affect the wealthy as much as the poor.
 
jamief said:
But with points, the punishment isn't equal!

Mr. minimum wage gets 6 points - his insurance doubles and he struggles to afford it.

Mr. £150k a year gets 6 points - his insurance doubles and he doesn't notice it.

The *only* way to effectively penalise people (equally) is by means tested penalties. The concept of points is great, but in practice more points equals higher motoring costs which doesn't affect the wealthy as much as the poor.
Click to expand...

Punishment is about the crime, not the criminal. How many times do we have to say this?

Means tested fines aren't even remotely justifiable.
 
jamief said:
The punishment in this case is X% of your income. Why is it not justifiable?
Click to expand...

Because, in the UK justice system, the punishment is based on the crime, not the criminal, and percentage fines are not based on the crime.

Would you also support basing punishments on other irrelevant factors to the crime such as gender or sexuality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom