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

[elmarko]

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

I disagree, a financial punishment should most certainly take into account the total assets of the person in question - otherwise it is neither a deterrent or a notable punishment.

Punishments involving prison should indeed ignore the wealth of the individual, but I don't think the same makes much sense for economic punitive measures. (This is already taken into account when we fine corporations), they don't fine Microsoft $5,000 dollars and rightly so.

If the maximum fine for a given offensive is negligible for the person offending (footballer or celebrity) then essential you can ignore that aspect of the law once your pockets get deep enough. Hardly what I'd call a fair justice system.

 

[Bear]

I disagree, a financial punishment should most certainly take into account the total assets of the person in question - otherwise it is neither a deterrent or a notable punishment.

Punishments involving prison should indeed ignore the wealth of the individual, but I don't think the same makes much sense for economic punitive measures. (This is already taken into account when we fine corporations), they don't fine Microsoft $5,000 dollars and rightly so.

If the maximum fine for a given offensive is negligible for the person offending (footballer or celebrity) then essential you can ignore that aspect of the law once your pockets get deep enough. Hardly what I'd call a fair justice system.

Whilst I agree, it goes against the "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law" which is enshined under the declaration of human rights.

 

[Randomface74]

Wouldn't make any difference, rich people are generally smart - not going round doing things that incur fines. It's the chavs that get fined for stupid stuff, and they don't have any money anyway coz they spent it all on booze/cigs/sky/crack.

 

[elmarko]

Whilst I agree, it goes against the "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law" which is enshined under the declaration of human rights.

Well, two potential counters.

1. Equal doesn't always mean the same - proportionate could be one interpretation.
2. A fixed percentage of annual income can be 'equal ' fine, allowing scalability to punitive fines & preventing the erosion of both the deterrence & punishment aspect.

I agree that principle is important - but I don't think we need to encompass our legal framework within a single line to maintain our ethical standards.

 

[scorza]

Fines from criminal activities should - in fact doesn't one of the more progressive European counties already do this (guess what? the sky hasn't fallen in).

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

Im with the above...
The punishment should be based on the nature and severity of the crime, not on the social status of the person who committed it.

 

[Efour]

Surely take the parking ticket one into consideration if you can 'afford it' you could park with impunity causing chaos?

Money just gives you carte blanche to flaunt the law/rules ?

 

[elmarko]

Im with the above...
The punishment should be based on the nature and severity of the crime, not on the social status of the person who committed it.

I dispute that a financial penalty is a punishment at all if the person in questions income out-scales the fixed amount. Part of the issue is that people incorrectly assume a fixed amount is balanced entirely - it isn't (in my view).

A - The amount is fixed & balanced, the impact is is varied based on the individuals ability to pay - ergo the overall punishment/penalty is only half balanced.
B - If the amount is varied, the impacted will be much better balanced based on the individuals ability to pay - ergo the overall punishment/penalty is still only half balanced.

The question is, what is gained or lost by each position.

For me, nothing is gained by arbitrarily setting a fixed amount (as neither position is 'fair' or equal if you look at both the impact or the amount) - but what's gained by setting it as a fixed percentage has the benefit of actually being a deterrent & punishment for those who earn statistically well beyond the average (to which the punishment is currently set to cater for).

To use Efour's example - does it act as a deterrent for those with great wealth?, does it act as a punishment? - should our legal system be structured in such a way that greater wealth reduces the relative impact of a given punishment? - these are important questions which a fixed penalty system doesn't fully address.

 

[cheesyboy]

Should they be relative to income?

Yes.

The impact upon the punished is what should, as far as is practical, be what is equalised.

Much as a cane across the knuckles is no punishment to a boy with no hands, a fine of £30, £100, or even £500 is nothing to someone with weekly income of, say, £100,000. But for someone with weekly income of £200, even a £10 will likely lead to some noticeable hardship.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yes, like Norway.

 

[Haggisman]

I agree with those saying that a fixed fine is not an equal punishment.

A £60 parking fine for a single mum with 2 kids to feed could be the difference between eating/not eating for a week.

A £60 parking fine for an exec from an investment bank on £100k+ would be pretty negligible.

The actual fine is equal, but the punishment certainly isn't.

If the idea behind the fines is just to be equal, why don't we just make them £1 for everyone - that way we wouldn't have to worry about mitigating circumstances in the case of causing hardship?

 

[Castiel]

I disagree, a financial punishment should most certainly take into account the total assets of the person in question - otherwise it is neither a deterrent or a notable punishment.

Punishments involving prison should indeed ignore the wealth of the individual, but I don't think the same makes much sense for economic punitive measures. (This is already taken into account when we fine corporations), they don't fine Microsoft $5,000 dollars and rightly so.

If the maximum fine for a given offensive is negligible for the person offending (footballer or celebrity) then essential you can ignore that aspect of the law once your pockets get deep enough. Hardly what I'd call a fair justice system.

Then you are essentially supporting discrimination in law based solely on social status of the individual. This is a two tier justice system where there is one law for the wealthy and another for the poor, ironically simply in reverse.

 

[dowie]

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.

I'm aware of what I'm proposing thanks and I'm not quite sure why you're finding it so difficult to follow. I am still advocating dictating the level of punishment by the offence only the level is a percentage rather than a fixed amount.

 

[dowie]

Whilst I agree, it goes against the "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law" which is enshined under the declaration of human rights.

It doesn't have to and I'm wondering if some people are being slightly innumerate when they miss that point. Having proportional fines, say % fines based on income for example doesn't necessarily discriminate and if anything having a fixed fine for an offence of x severity can quite easily discriminate given the disproportional impact the punishment can have.

 

[cheesyboy]

Then you are essentially supporting discrimination in law based solely on social status of the individual. This is a two tier justice system where there is one law for the wealthy and another for the poor, ironically simply in reverse.

It's not a discrimination, and certainly not on social status - simply wealth.

In the same way that only having stair access to public facilities IS discriminatory against those without the means to climb them (despite being the same service offered to all), a standard fine IS discriminatory against those without the means to cover it. Ergo, a tailored fine based on ability to pay is actually more egalitarian.

 

[elmarko]

Then you are essentially supporting discrimination in law based solely on social status of the individual. This is a two tier justice system where there is one law for the wealthy and another for the poor, ironically simply in reverse.

That is clearly not the case.

You are advocating equal punishment regarding the amount, I'm advocating equal punishment regarding the relative economic impact. Besides, I'm not advocating a two tier system - I'm advocating a fixed percentage applicable to all.

You appear to making the common mistake in assuming our current method isn't already imbalanced. Obviously you are perfectly free to disagree with my analysis or my view, but you are not in any position to claim to be against discrimination by supporting a fixed amount for all - it's just a different kind of discrimination (one which discriminates against those whom the fixed amount is a greater proportion of their total income).

I simply believe it's preferable to discriminate regarding the amount rather than the impact.

 

[Castiel]

I'm aware of what I'm proposing thanks and I'm not quite sure why you're finding it so difficult to follow. I am still advocating dictating the level of punishment by the offence only the level is a percentage rather than a fixed amount.

No you are not, you are dictating the level of punishment by the status of the individual committing the offence, not the offence itself.

What we do currently is dictate the level of punishment by the offence using a variable system which takes into consideration both aggravating and mitigating circumstances which amongst other things include the ability of the offender to pay and the severity and nature of the offence itself. This are controlled by sentencing guidelines for each offence and the circumstances in the committal of each offence.

Everyone talking about parking fines is missing one point, parking fines are not a criminal offence. They are a civil system of enforcement and are universally treated as a fixed penalty in the first instance throughout Europe. Speeding is a criminal offence and is therefore different in both scope and how the justice system is applied, for example Speeding is subject to a variable level of punishment which includes financial and licensing endorsements and can also lead to custodial sentencing depending upon the severity of the offence and other factors such as consequences and outcomes, the status of the offender, whether they are a reoffender and so on.

There is no fixed penalty system for criminal offences in the UK, fixed penalties are at the discretion of the Police and are what are termed as absolute minimum fines and include in the case of speed penalties other than financial.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

If my income matches my expenditure and I have £120 in savings then a £60 fixed penalty means the kids won't be getting Christmas presents.

If my income greatly surpasses my expenditure and I have £1,000,000 in assets then a £60 fixed penalty means I'll pay for the wine shipment on the other credit card this week.

It depend what you want your penalty fines to act as. If they're an arbitrary punishment designed to reimburse the Council/Victim/Whoever for the cost and inconvenience of the crime then that's fine. However, if they are designed to deter or to actually punish the individual then clearly the current system is skewed in favour of the rich.

It's also a massively subjective system at the point of implementation, if you ask a person on minimum wage to decide at which point they believe a fine would be a deterrant or punishment they are likely to pitch lower than a multi-millionnaire I would imagine.

I'm speaking specifically in regards to fixed penalties here, as opposed to fines levied for criminal offences.

 

[Castiel]

That is clearly not the case.

You are advocating equal punishment regarding the amount, I'm advocating equal punishment regarding the relative economic impact. Besides, I'm not advocating a two tier system - I'm advocating a fixed percentage applicable to all.

Yes it is I'm afraid. Our justice system already has a variable system of punishment. You are advocating a two tier system whereby the financial status of the individual determines the level of the punishment. One law for the poor and another for the wealthy. You might not think so, but that is exactly what you are doing. We already have a system which considers the status of the individual within sentencing guidelines, that's why we have a Statement of Means which is taken into consideration at sentencing and a variable level of fines and other punishments for offenders.

You are introducing discrimination based solely on the social status of the offender rather than the severity and nature if the crime committed.

 

[Dis86]

I think elmarko hit it on the head with the word proportional.
As stated given adequate wealth some fines are absolutely pointless and don't represet punishment or deterrent.
It's not a question of punishing someone because they're more successful because the punishment is proportional. It is equal to all.
Think of the fine as a percentage instead of a fixed number.
One percent to a rich person is the same as one percent to a poor person.