Should police/court/council fines be relative to income?

[dowie]

No.

Every person should be treated equally under the law, if a crime is punishable by a fine then the fine should be determined by the severity and nature of the crime, not by the nature and status of the individual committing it.

I'm not sure how you can say 'No' to "when the punishment is a financial one then the punishment is essentially different depending on the financial status of the person receiving it" - you might not agree with implementing fines in that way but the actual punishment aspect does vary with a fixed monetary amount depending on the financial position of the person it is leveled against.

and they can be treated equally and proportionally... a % fine can be equally applied and may well have a more equal punishment/deterrent effect

 

[Castiel]

But a fixed fine of £100 is more of a punishment to those without liquidity - so whilst the fine is the same, is the punishment truly equal?

Yes. The punishment is based on the crime, not in the individual who committed it. One rule for one and one rule for another is not equality.

 

[Castiel]

and they can be treated equally and proportionally... a % fine can be equally applied and may well have a more equal punishment/deterrent effect

That is creating an inequality based upon the status of the individual, not on the crime committed.

You have to make a decision, is our justice system based on the social and financial status of the individual or on the crime committed?

 

[dowie]

That is creating an inequality based upon the status of the individual, not on the crime committed.

How so? They're fined the same % amount?

Can easily argue that a fixed penalty creates a bigger inequality - especially for people on very low incomes.

You have to make a decision, is our justice system based on the social and financial status of the individual or on the crime committed?

in the case of a financial punishment the financial status is relevant... do you subject them to an arbitrary fixed fine which will have a varying punishment effect or a proportional % fine which may well have a more consistent punishment/deterrent effect

 

[Castiel]

How so? They're fined the same % amount?

Can easily argue that a fixed penalty creates a bigger inequality - especially for people on very low incomes.

You are basing the punishment on the status of the individual rather than the crime committed. That is the inequality....you are creating a system where there is one punishment for one person, but another punishment for someone else even when the nature and severity of the offence is the same.

in the case of a financial punishment the financial status is relevant... do you subject them to an arbitrary fixed fine which will have a varying punishment effect or a proportional % fine which may well have a more consistent punishment/deterrent effect

Which is why I disagree, the nature and severity of the offence should determine the level of punishment, not who committed the offence, otherwise you create a multi-tier justice system rather than one which treats all people the same.

 

[dowie]

You are basing the punishment on the status of the individual rather than the crime committed. That is the inequality....you are creating a system where there is one punishment for one person, but another punishment for someone else even when the nature and severity of the offence is the same.

the punishment is also the same - X% of gross income... its not one punishment for one person its a set percentage say... the nature and severity of the punishment is then the same

A fixed penalty is going to have a much more varied punishment effect - In instances where the only punishment is the fine then it can have a meaningless effect on some individuals and a serious effect on others. The offence is the same yet the nature and severity of a fixed penalty depends on the financial position of the individual.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Gross income wouldn't ensure equality, what about somebody on 50k a year with 3 kids, a stay at home wife and a mortgage? His fine would be massively more punitive than that of someone on 40k living with a partner on similar money and no kids.

 

[dowie]

Gross income wouldn't ensure equality, what about somebody on 50k a year with 3 kids, a stay at home wife and a mortgage? His fine would be massively more punitive than that of someone on 40k living with a partner on similar money and no kids.

Indeed it wouldn't... but it would likely be more proportional in terms of punishment/deterrent effect than an arbitrary fixed fine.

 

[Castiel]

the punishment is also the same - X% of gross income... its not one punishment for one person its a set percentage say... the nature and severity of the punishment is then the same.

You misunderstand, I am referring to the punishment being based in the nature and severity of the offence, not the severity of the offence being based on the nature of the individual.

A fixed penalty is going to have a much more varied punishment effect - In instances where the only punishment is the fine then it can have a meaningless effect on some individuals and a serious effect on others. The offence is the same yet the nature and severity of a fixed penalty depends on the financial position of the individual.

Repeating yourself ad infinitum is not going to convince me. The punishment should be based on the nature and severity of the crime, not on the social status of the person who committed it. That's it, agree or disagree, but stop repeating the same argument.

 

[dowie]

You misunderstand, I am referring to the punishment being based in the nature and severity of the offence, not the severity of the offence being based on the nature of the individual.

I'm not misunderstanding I'm simply disagreeing and putting forward that you can also base a proportional punishment on the nature and severity of the crime.

Repeating yourself ad infinitum is not going to convince me. The punishment should be based on the nature and severity of the crime, not on the social status of the person who committed it. That's it, agree or disagree, but stop repeating the same argument.

You're also repeating the same argument... albeit simply the opposing one.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not misunderstanding I'm simply disagreeing and putting forward that you can also base a proportional punishment on the nature and severity of the crime.

You are agreeing with me then, as I am saying the punishment should be proportional to the severity and nature of the crime, not the status of the individual. You appear to be saying that the punishment should be based on the financial status of the individual and not the severity and nature of the crime?

You're also repeating the same argument... albeit simply the opposing one.

Then stop repeating yourself.

Your whole position falls apart anyway as the defendants ability to pay a fine based on the severity and nature of the offence is taken into consideration through the Statement of Means during sentencing. The punishment is still based solely on the offence, but the persons ability to pay along with other factors is considered as mitigation when deciding the scale of the fine so that undue hardship is not typically imposed on those who cannot afford to pay. This is opposed to having a open ended system of punishment based solely on the income of the person who commits an offence.

In all cases the offence should determine the severity of the punishment, not whether someone earns more than someone else. Mitigation should be considered in cases of proven hardship, that should ensure fairness in sentencing within the range of minimum and maximum fines applicable for each offence.

http://www.speedingfinesuk.co.uk/speeding_fines_statement_of_means.htm

 

[Angilion]

I like the idea because I could get some easy money from it

I'd call myself "The Parking Peasant". I'd park cars for a fee. Since I parked them, I'd be liable for parking fines. Since I'm poor, my fines would be much lower. So a rich person could pay me an amount which would cover my fine and a fee for me but which would be much less than what their fine would be. If it went well, I could expand the business and become rich...ah, that might be a problem

 

[dowie]

You are agreeing with me then, as I am saying the punishment should be proportional to the severity and nature of the crime, not the status of the individual. You appear to be saying that the punishment should be based on the financial status of the individual and not the severity and nature of the crime?

I agree that the punishment should be proportional to the severity and nature of the crime. If the punishment is a financial one then the financial status of the individual affects whether the punishment is proportional too.

1% fine for moderately severe event X
2% fine for rather more severe event Y

A punishment can reflect the severity of the crime while also attempting to be proportional and have a similar deterrent/punishment effect regarldess of who is being fined.

Then stop repeating yourself.

ditto

Your whole position falls apart anyway as the defendants ability to pay a fine based on the severity and nature of the offence is taken into consideration through the Statement of Means during sentencing. The punishment is still based solely on the offence, but the persons ability to pay along with other factors is considered as mitigation when deciding the scale of the fine so that undue hardship is not typically imposed on those who cannot afford to pay. This is opposed to having a open ended system of punishment based solely on the income of the person who commits an offence.

no it doesn't fall apart... we're not just talking about financial hardship here... adding in some proportionality at one extreme end of the distribution does nothing for the rest of it...

In all cases the offence should determine the severity of the punishment, not whether someone earns more than someone else.

You can do both - a greater or lesser % applied depending on the severity of the offence.

 

[Castiel]

I agree that the punishment should be proportional to the severity and nature of the crime. If the punishment is a financial one then the financial status of the individual affects whether the punishment is proportional too.

1% fine for moderately severe event X
2% fine for rather more severe event Y

A punishment can reflect the severity of the crime while also attempting to be proportional and have a similar deterrent/punishment effect regarldess of who is being fined.

In which case you are basing the severity of the punishment on the nature of the Individual committing the offence, not the crime.

This I disagree with.

no it doesn't fall apart... we're not just talking about financial hardship here

We are. The offence should dictate the level of punishment, mitigation should be dictated by the ability to pay.

You can do both - a greater or lesser % applied depending on the severity of the offence.

A greater or lesser fine depending on the severity of the offence is what I am advocating. Not what you are saying.

As I pointed out, our justice system already does both, it dictated the sentence according to the Offence and then applies mitigation according to the offenders status.

 

[dowie]

In which case you are basing the severity of the punishment on the nature of the Individual committing the offence, not the crime.

This I disagree with,

No its inherently based on the crime in that example... the percentage applied has nothing to do with the nature of the individual.

The severity of a financial punishment is affected much more by the financial status of the individual when the punishment is a fixed monetary amount so its odd for you to be arguing about the severity of the punishment when this is the one thing that is highly variable in a fixed system you're advocating for.

We are. The offence should dictate the level of punishment, mitigation should be dictated by the ability to pay.

The offence can still dictate the level of punishment in a proportional system - it doesn't go against that principle.

 

[Castiel]

No its inherently based on the crime in that example... the percentage applied has nothing to do with the nature of the individual.

The severity of a financial punishment is affected much more by the financial status of the individual when the punishment is a fixed monetary amount so its odd for you to be arguing about the severity of the punishment when this is the one thing that is highly variable in a fixed system you're advocating for.

I don't know what you are advocating anymore, you keep changing what you are saying.

I'm not advocating a fixed fine system either, but that the range of sentencing available be based on the offence committed not the status of individual who committed it...mitigation should be applied as deemed suitable, but the range of punishments should be dictated by the offence. None if this £50000 fine for doing 40 in a 30 zone simply because the offender has plenty of money. If the range of fines is 100 ---> 2500 (as it is currently) then that should be applicable to everyone. Mitigation is enough to ensure there is no undue hardship applied unnecessary in sentencing.

Fixed penalties are only applicable outside of court, and any variable system cannot be applied at the roadside or through fixed ticketing. It requires court time, and we already have a system that is variable in sentencing for most, if not all offences.

The offence can still dictate the level of punishment in a proportional system - it doesn't go against that principle.

By definition it does, unless we simply use the system we already have which imposes sentencing limitations based on the offence with mitigation based on ability to pay.

 

[dowie]

I don't know what you are advocating anymore, you keep changing what you are saying.

So first I'm repeating myself and now I'm changing what I'm saying...

Sorry but I'm still advocating the same basic idea that the OP has put forth in the first post.

I'm not advocating a fixed fine system either, but that the range of sentencing available be based on the offence committed not the status of individual who committed it...mitigation should be applied as deemed suitable, but the range of punishments should be dictated by the offence. None if this £50000 fine for doing 40 in a 30 zine simply because the offender has plenty of money. If the range of fines is 100 ---> 2500 then that should be applicable to everyone. Mitigation is enough to ensure there is no undue hardship applied unnecessary.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by a fixed system as opposed to a proportional... You're proposing fixed fines based on the severity of the offence though you've also put forth the mitigating circumstance element which brings in some proportionality albeit only to the far left hand side of the distribution.

By definition it does

Nope it doesn't... the level of punishment is a % rather than a fixed amount - the offence can still dictate that level

 

[Castiel]

So first I'm repeating myself and now I'm changing what I'm saying...

Sorry but I'm still advocating the same basic idea that the OP has put forth in the first post.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by a fixed system as opposed to a proportional... You're proposing fixed fines based on the severity of the offence though you've also put forth the mitigating circumstance element which brings in some proportionality albeit only to the far left hand side of the distribution.

I'm advocating what we already have, a variable system of sentencing within predetermined guidelines based on the severity and nature of the offence with mitigation for the circumstances of the individual.

Nope it doesn't... the level of punishment is a % rather than a fixed amount - the offence can still dictate that level

Except that's not what you are proposing, that's what we have already within sentencing guidelines...you are advocating dictating the punishment by the wealth of the individual, not the offence.

 

[asim18]

Punishments should be determined by the crime not by the social or financial status of the perpetrator.

Parking fines and other council made fines aren't crime and punishment though. Councils need you and want you to break their rules such as park illegally, you cant say that about actual crime now can you? You don't get a criminal record for parking illegally. When the council sees someone breaking their rules they don't think "oh look at this dirty criminal". More like "Poor sod forgot to display a £1.50 permit, but now we get £180 KERCHING!! \o/".

In return they get loads of money and get to claim that they've created X amount of jobs.

It's a bit like making a new rule that if you wear odd socks you have to pay the council £180 and in return for creating this completely unnecessary rule they will create 50 new "sock patrol" jobs. Same with parking, there weren't any restrictions or wardens around here 5 years ago, and they've implemented it now for absolutely no reason other than making money.

If the entire point of parking fines is due to the financial greed of councils then why cant the penalty be relative to how rich the person paying actually is?

Fines are meant as a financial penalisation, now everyone finances are inherently different. So having relative fines doesn't mean they're treating some people lighter than others. In fact it would be more fairer because a £180 fine to someone on JSA for example would be absolute hell compared with the same fine to someone who's working full time.

 

[Efour]

Jesus you 2 stuck in a loop lol.....

Equal fines but with some scope for repeat offending. So if Mr Ferrari gets a 3rd ticket in Knightsbridge the fine escalates up to amounts that might make him think twice or earn the council a decent amount of cash.

Then 'finally' poo > letterbox