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

[Haggisman]

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.

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

Exactly. I think the key thing to determine is what is the intended purpose of the fines in the first place?

Outside of pay & display car parks, someone parking somewhere they shouldn't does not inherently cost money, so are these fines issued to cover the costs of issuing the fines? In which case, why not do away with the fines, because if there are no fines, there wont be any costs associated with issuing the fines.

If it's in a pay & display car park, then why aren't these fines simply for the amount a ticket would have cost for the time the person was parked?

If they are purely to make money, then why not make the fines higher? After all, it would be better to make £600 than £60!

 

[Castiel]

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.

Except you are solely basing the punishment of the offence on the individual committing it rather than the severity and nature of the offence itself. That In itself is discriminatory. Being proportional should also be in regard to the offence committed, not solely on the social status of the offender.

We already have a variable and proportional system which is based on a range of factors both mitigating and aggravating. There are sentencing guidelines which factor in the ability to pay a fine and whether a fine is appropriate and at what level...we already do this.

 

[Haggisman]

Except you are solely basing the punishment of the offence on the individual committing it rather than the severity and nature of the offence itself. That In itself is discriminatory.

1% is 1%, regardless of whether it's 1% of £100 or 1% of £1,000,000

That's not "One law for the poor and another for the wealthy.", that's one law for everyone regardless of wealth.

Castiel, what do you think is actually the purpose behind issuing fines?

 

[cheesyboy]

Except you are solely basing the punishment of the offence on the individual committing it rather than the severity and nature of the offence itself. That In itself is discriminatory.

We already have a variable and proportional system which is based on a range of factors both mitigating and aggravating. There are sentencing guidelines which factor in the ability to pay a fine and whether a fine is appropriate and at what level...we already do this.

I don't think anyone's saying we should ignore severity of the offense, simply that the punishment should be scaled dependent on means. Where a fine is used, of course.

This happens to some extent already, as you highlight. But it tends to be a set amount which may be reduced for hardship, so has a ceiling. Perhaps that ceiling should be removed.

 

[pepsilol]

In reality this is a thread for poor people to complain.

 

[Castiel]

1% is 1%, regardless of whether it's 1% of £100 or 1% of £1,000,000

You don't get it, it's not proportional to the offence itself. You are saying that a fine might be £5 or it might be £5m for doing 30mph in a 20mph zone based solely on the social status of the offender, not the actual offence. This might seem proportionate regarding the finances of the individual, but it is entirely disproportionate regarding the actual offence committed. there should be, and there already are both minimum and maximum parameters set out in the sentencing guidelines that a court has to consider, these take into consideration both the offence and the offender. It is proportionate already, both in regards the nature of the offence and the offender.

 

[Castiel]

I don't think anyone's saying we should ignore severity of the offense, simply that the punishment should be scaled dependent on means. Where a fine is used, of course.

This happens to some extent already, as you highlight. But it tends to be a set amount which may be reduced for hardship, so has a ceiling. Perhaps that ceiling should be removed.

There is where I disagree, minimum and maximum sentencing guideline exist for a reason, removing them would open up the justice system to abuse of all kinds and effectively makes justice another form of taxation.

 

[dowie]

You don't get it, it's not proportional to the offence itself.

I think you don't get it, a % fine can still be proportional to the offence... there isn't much to argue here really a 1% fine for X and 2% fine for Y is proportional to the offence whether you agree with the principle behind it or not. The difference is simply that the impact of that punishment is also proportional as is the deterrent effect.

 

[Haggisman]

Castiel, what do you think is actually the purpose behind issuing fines?

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, what do you think is actually the purpose behind issuing fines?

I know what they are not, a form of taxation on the wealthy.

Anyway this is my last post, nothing to do with this thread itself but an ongoing issue with moderation that seems to have no satisfactory resolution. So I am no longer willing to participate either in this thread or the forum at large.

 

[Haggisman]

I know what they are not, a form of taxation on the wealthy.

Anyway this is my last post, nothing to do with this thread itself but an ongoing issue with moderation that seems to have no satisfactory resolution. So I am no longer willing to participate either in this thread or the forum at large.

Well, that's convenient

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You don't get it, it's not proportional to the offence itself. You are saying that a fine might be £5 or it might be £5m for doing 30mph in a 20mph zone based solely on the social status of the offender, not the actual offence. This might seem proportionate regarding the finances of the individual, but it is entirely disproportionate regarding the actual offence committed. there should be, and there already are both minimum and maximum parameters set out in the sentencing guidelines that a court has to consider, these take into consideration both the offence and the offender. It is proportionate already, both in regards the nature of the offence and the offender.

The purpose of a fine is to deter people from doing it again, by hurting them financially. It's supposed to be a punishment.

£5 to a billionaire is nothing, he will continue to do it it's not hurting them at all.

Fine him £5 million and he will actually stop doing it.

 

[elmarko]

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.

You seem to have missed the part of the post where I addressed this concern.

A fixed percentage isn't discriminatory in the way you are implying, it scales relative to the persons ability to pay. Charging one group 40% of their annual income & another 60% would be, but this is not what's being suggested.

Besides, it's no more discriminatory than fining a poor person 3 months disposable income than fining a wealthy person pocket change when you take into account the impact.

You can't just draw a line under the fixed amount presuming it's fair & then declare that everything past that point is irrelevant (when in reality the impact should be another aspect of the punishment being fair).

As I said before, I'd perfectly accept a difference as to what the priorities should be - but I don't believe you are correct in portraying my position as being discriminatory & the default position as being equal (in reality either both are, or neither are - as they both possess a flaw to meeting that criteria).

I know what they are not, a form of taxation on the wealthy.

Anyway this is my last post, nothing to do with this thread itself but an ongoing issue with moderation that seems to have no satisfactory resolution. So I am no longer willing to participate either in this thread or the forum at large.

Fair enough, I hope these issues get resolved & we see you back soon, I enjoy a good debate.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

In truth you may as well just ask if people are left or right wing. It boils down to the same argument as Mrs Thatcher's Poll Tax where everybody paid the same amount. Righties believe that is fair and lefties don't.

 

[estebanrey]

I wonder if Castiel is also against % income tax as well. I mean, forget the progressive tax bands we have, even if we had a flat rate for all by his logic the HMRC are unfairly punishing people based on their social status.

Does he support a set £100 a month income tax bill regardless of income and if not why not?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

What about pricing goods relative to people's ability to pay ?

 

[oneilldo]

If the aim of financial penalties (i.e. parking fines) is to act as a deterrent then surely something where they incrementally increase by a certain percent would be both easier to implement and more likely to change behavior.

For example say its double your last punishment (a smaller increase would be more suitable but for illustration purposes..) then your first parking fine is £30, next £60, next £120 etc.


This way it would be similar to speeding which despite having fixed financial penalties also has the accumulation of points (and the risk of losing your licence and potential impact to job etc.) which probably alters behavior more than the actual financial penalty (i.e. I would assume that the more points you accumulate the less likely you are to speed again)

 

[Haggisman]

If the aim of financial penalties (i.e. parking fines) is to act as a deterrent then surely something where they incrementally increase by a certain percent would be both easier to implement and more likely to change behavior.

For example say its double your last punishment (a smaller increase would be more suitable but for illustration purposes..) then your first parking fine is £30, next £60, next £120 etc.

But even then, it would take 5-6 fines for someone swimming in disposable income to really care...

£200 fine? Pah, that's 1 bottle less champagne at the next dinner party!

What about pricing goods relative to people's ability to pay ?

Well, to some extent, this already happens due to supply and demand.

If no one was able to afford milk for example, the price would plummet as there would be an excess and it would be better to sell it for a small amount than not sell it at all.

 

[Xordium]

No, they should only be relevant to the harm caused. Justice is supposed to be equal, which means that the same crime in the same circumstances should receive a consistent punishment.

Yes, we do need to treat people equally and therefore we have the same old problem that to treat people equally we don't necessarily have to treat them the 'same'. It's a difficult one because I agree with you but by letting the wealthy pay so significantly less we are not actually giving equal justice but same justice.

The problem with fines is that the people who will often be punished are not those who will have committed the offence. It will be other family members going short.

To be honest I wish we would just stop fining people and dishing more community service out. Can't be bothered to pick up dog mess - then you get 2 weeks of it in your own neighbourhood with a nice jacket that tells everyone what you are doing. Can't be bothered to keep to speed limits then spend some time helping out at the local head injuries clinic. Like writing on walls - spend a month of evenings cleaning them. Like dropping litter - spend a few evenings picking it up in your local neighbourhood.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Well, to some extent, this already happens due to supply and demand. If no one was able to afford milk for example, the price would plummet as there would be an excess and it would be better to sell it for a small amount than not sell it at all.

I meant people paying x% of their income per litre of milk. It's the same principle as some are proposing here.