£180,000 speding fine . . .

[Rich_L]

No, it is as I said. You wish to punish people differently for the same crime, based on what you perceive to be an equal impact on the individual. It is the criminal, not the crime, that determines the punishment.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this to be honest, because we are working to fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes fairness, and I doubt I'll ever be able to convince you of mine, or vice versa.

Indeed.

I could describe your view exactly the same and say that you wish to punish people differently for the same crime, because different people will be impacted more harshly or more leniently depending on their circumstances.

You are looking at 'fair' across a society, I am looking at 'fair' based on the individuals, I think.

The impact on the individual varies, the impact on the victim and on society does not. It all depends which you think is the appropriate measure to use to determine the appropriate consequences for the crime.

Given that punishment is about the effect on the criminal of course.

Your view of 'punishment' seems to be no more than compensation to the state and victim, rather than actually punishing the criminal. Surely a consequence of a crime should include compensation to the state and victim in addition to a punishment for the individual?

 

[Kenai]

Which is why you also multiply the previous fine for each subsequent offence. If people keep commiting crimes, increase the punishment based on that factor, don't do it based on something that has nothing to do with the crime.

All that achieves is eventually reaching the point at which the fine deters the offender via allowing them to commit the offence until they no longer view it as worth the risk. Means testing aims to pick out this point to start with to eliminate the need to allow repeat offences before you stop the richer people commiting the crime.

Fair point, however, arguing that minimum/maximum fines should apply somewhat negates the means testing idea. Either the fine is based on the impact of the crime, or the impact of the fine on the criminal. Mixing the two will still lead to unfairness at either end, so you either need to go for a full means tested system, or a full crime impact system if you want to create a fair system. Hybrid systems (such as we have now) still create unfairness one way or another, and frequently combine the worst of both worlds.

I have only argued for a minimum, not a maximum because as you say, imposing a maximum would create issues.

A minimum level should be ascertained that adequately reflects the cost, social impact and so on of a crime and then be scaled upwards from there. I'm not about to sit here and devise a completely figured plan for means tested fining for the sake of a discussion though

The minimum level should be enough to reflect the social impact and, if necessary also provide a deterrent.

Ultimately you can't get fairer than a punishment affecting people the same amount. If a fine punishes Person A to the tune of half a days wages, it should punish Person B to half a days wages too (that is in simplistic terms, obviously a variety of factors need to be taken into account).

Don't forget i've already stated multiple times that financially based fines are flawed anywaay when it comes to deterrent, things such as points systems are far more fair and far more effective. However, we can't license/points everything we do and so for some things we are stuck with fines and where we are, I think means testing provides a far better solution than flat rate does at deterring people from commiting those crimes.

 

[Glaucus]

Ultimately you can't get fairer than a punishment affecting people the same amount. If a fine punishes Person A to the tune of half a days wages, it should punish Person B to half a days wages too (that is in simplistic terms, obviously a variety of factors need to be taken into account).

And that's the difference, both points of view are fair, it just depends what perspective.

One is point of perspective of the social harm and one is from the deterrent.

 

[Kenai]

The impact on the individual varies, the impact on the victim and on society does not. It all depends which you think is the appropriate measure to use to determine the appropriate consequences for the crime.

When you're coming from a standpoint of fines being to 'compensate' society's losses or damages then your viewpoint makes sense. This however is less a punishment than it is a fee when you take this approach.

When coming from the viewpoint a fine should also be a tool with which to deter people from commiting a crime, which I believe any good punishment should be, then means testing makes sense.

 

[Glaucus]

When you're coming from a standpoint of fines being to 'compensate' society's losses or damages then your viewpoint makes sense. This however is less a punishment than it is a fee when you take this approach.
.

I agree with it just being about social harm, it is no longer a crime or punishment and becomes a tax.

 

[stockhausen]

Means testing isn't a fair approach to law enforcement. The fine should be proportionate to the social harm done, not the individuals income.

Straw man

The degree of perceived social harm done has nothing to do with law enforcement. Deterrence may have; a means tested fine seems a very sensible way of tailoring the deterrent effect to the offender.

Good on the Swiss

 

[Dolph]

Indeed.

I could describe your view exactly the same and say that you wish to punish people differently for the same crime, because different people will be impacted more harshly or more leniently depending on their circumstances.

Indeed you could, I've not denied that the impact of the punishment would be different for each individual, but that the punishment for the crime is consistent with the crime itself. You certainly could argue that is unfair, it all depends on viewpoint.

You are looking at 'fair' across a society, I am looking at 'fair' based on the individuals, I think.

I am looking at fair from the point of view of the victim, rather than the criminal. It could be argued that fair from the point of view of the individual is reflective of the impact of the crime, rather than the impact of the punishment, and that is the position I come from. The impact on individuals is also much more complicated than income or wealth, because two people of the same income level can result in different impacts if levelled with the same fine. It is incredibly complicated to try and accurately punish all individuals equally, which is another reason why I would argue against such a system.

Given that punishment is about the effect on the criminal of course.

Your view of 'punishment' seems to be no more than compensation to the state and victim, rather than actually punishing the criminal. Surely a consequence of a crime should include compensation to the state and victim in addition to a punishment for the individual?

Hence why you multiply the costs/compensation to provide a punishment factor that is relative to the crime, rather than the criminal.

When you're coming from a standpoint of fines being to 'compensate' society's losses or damages then your viewpoint makes sense. This however is less a punishment than it is a fee when you take this approach.

When coming from the viewpoint a fine should also be a tool with which to deter people from commiting a crime, which I believe any good punishment should be, then means testing makes sense.

I guess it depends how much influence the state should have against the individual. The thing is, in my view, while many activities that are currently crimes would be scrapped, others would have the punishment dramatically increased compared to the effect they have now. Costs to society of crime include running law enforcement and the courts, as well as any medical costs, loss of earnings (both state and individual) and so on... I would happily suggest that such fines would be more than enough to punish the vast majority, and indeed more than enough to deter even the wealthy if a multiplication rule was used for multiple offences.

 

[Rich_L]

Yeah I do see where you're coming from, I just don't agree, although perhaps a system should include both viewpoints - which I believe is roughly what our current one does? Fixed penalty notices for most offences but the more serious ones which require courts tend to take means into account to scale up the fine.

Would you just accept, therefore, that there will be some wealthy people who, if they are willing to spend the money, can commit crime freely until the multiplier effect becomes a deterrent?

With reference to, for example, crimes where there is no 'legal' alternative, aforementioned punch in the face as a good one

 

[Kenai]

I guess it depends how much influence the state should have against the individual.

I disgree, I just think it comes down to whether you think punishments should aim to deter an individual from commiting a crime or whether you think they should purely compensate society when an individual does commit a crime.

In some cases the costs will more than cover a deterrent effect, in others it wouldn't. That said, it still impacts offenders differently and will punish richer people less than poorer people.

I agree with the idea a fine should cover costs and damages - that is only logical. However I think this should then be your lower limit fine for that activity rather the only fine, with means testing providing an increased fine to ensure equal level of deterrent to all scales of wealth.

 

[Dolph]

Yeah I do see where you're coming from, I just don't agree, although perhaps a system should include both viewpoints - which I believe is roughly what our current one does? Fixed penalty notices for most offences but the more serious ones which require courts tend to take means into account to scale up the fine.

Our current system is completely screwed because we have far too many laws passed for no evidentially backed reason, until that is resolved, it is impossible to work out the costs and fine levels correctly either way

Would you just accept, therefore, that there will be some wealthy people who, if they are willing to spend the money, can commit crime freely until the multiplier effect becomes a deterrent?

Yes. Are you willing to accept that the current system has groups of poor people who consider themselves immune from punishment because the state doesn't or can't enforce the fine against them in a meaningful way?

With reference to, for example, crimes where there is no 'legal' alternative, aforementioned punch in the face as a good one

There is always an alternative to violence, unless someone is already being violent towards you. That some people are unable or unwilling to utilise it is not the point.

Fines are not always the best solution as a consequence of crime, however.

I disgree, I just think it comes down to whether you think punishments should aim to deter an individual from commiting a crime or whether you think they should purely compensate society when an individual does commit a crime.

In some cases the costs will more than cover a deterrent effect, in others it wouldn't. That said, it still impacts offenders differently and will punish richer people less than poorer people.

I agree with the idea a fine should cover costs and damages - that is only logical. However I think this should then be your lower limit fine for that activity rather the only fine, with means testing providing an increased fine to ensure equal level of deterrent to all scales of wealth.

As I said to Rich_L, I don't think we're going to agree on this, I can certainly see your point, I just disagree with it. I consider that crimes should attract identical punishment, based on the crime, rather than punishment based on the criminal, to be fairer. You disagree, and that's fine. There is no right or wrong answer here, it all depends on the starting viewpoint

 

[Rich_L]

Yes. Are you willing to accept that the current system has groups of poor people who consider themselves immune from punishment because the state doesn't or can't enforce the fine against them in a meaningful way?

I would simply point towards ->

Fines are not always the best solution as a consequence of crime, however.

Hence why in my 'Punishment Unit' scenario, you try and obtain equivalent punishments in terms of impact by whatever means, dependent on the individual circumstances of the criminal.

3 months community service would be a huge impact on say, a CEO, because he would have to take a long (potentially permanent) break from work, instead of paying a fine of say, £1,000.00.

Equally, a fine of £1,000 to someone with no money and no job is meaningless, because they would never be able to pay it, but 3 months of community service would be eminently do-able.

 

[Dolph]

I would simply point towards ->

Hence why in my 'Punishment Unit' scenario, you try and obtain equivalent punishments in terms of impact by whatever means, dependent on the individual circumstances of the criminal.

3 months community service would be a huge impact on say, a CEO, because he would have to take a long (potentially permanent) break from work, instead of paying a fine of say, £1,000.00.

Equally, a fine of £1,000 to someone with no money and no job is meaningless, because they would never be able to pay it, but 3 months of community service would be eminently do-able.

I was thinking more in general terms, in that some crimes are not money related or quantifiable, hence a fine is inappropriate, likewise a fine has no protection or rehabilitation aspect, so may not be appropriate there. To compound the issue further, our justice system levies fines that go nowhere near either the victim or the consequences of the crime, so there is no rational link between the crime and the consequences.

The punishment for crimes should not vary by criminal, but by crime, this includes varying types of punishment as much as it includes varying the amount of punishment.

 

[Rich_L]

As you say, I think it just depends on how you define 'punishment'. I consider the whole concept of 'punishment' to be intrinsically linked to the impact on the recipient of the punishment, and therefore the concept of proportionality is unavoidable. To illustrate two extreme examples, as favoured by most law lecturers (lol)

A punishment for theft is slap on the wrist of a defined force.

By an incredibly fortuitous combination of circumstances you have two individuals with two medical conditions:

One has a nerve injury so feels no pain in his wrists - a slap of the defined force will not be felt.
One has incredibly brittle bones - a slap of the defined force will shatter the person's wrist bones.

Is the punishment the same?

The action of the punishment is the same, the impact vastly different.

Were the criminals punished equally?

 

[Glaucus]

The punishment for crimes should not vary by criminal,

It does not very by criminal. a 2% means tested is still 2% regardless of the criminal.

 

[The Running Man]

I am looking at fair from the point of view of the victim, rather than the criminal. It could be argued that fair from the point of view of the individual is reflective of the impact of the crime, rather than the impact of the punishment, and that is the position I come from. The impact on individuals is also much more complicated than income or wealth, because two people of the same income level can result in different impacts if levelled with the same fine. It is incredibly complicated to try and accurately punish all individuals equally, which is another reason why I would argue against such a system.

you seem to insinuate that every crime has a victim - but this is not necessarily true...but simply because there is no victim doesnt mean that you shouldnt look at what the damage could have been to a 'potential' victim...

for example, say the guy HAD hit someone at 85mph or whatever through speeding.

should the punishment be higher or lower than if he committed the crime and did NOT hit someone given that the potential to damage was apparent in both circumstances.

IF he had hit someone (who became damaged because of this hit) and had been fined £180,000 which had been awarded to the victim would it make you happier?

if so, just close your eyes and pretend that every crime has a victim and then you should understand the severity of the fine.

The punishment for crimes should not vary by criminal, but by crime, this includes varying types of punishment as much as it includes varying the amount of punishment.

i disagree.. the 'type' of punishment should vary by crime, but with flexible leverages that can be tailored towards the circumstances of the criminal. i.e speeding should be a fine, but the size of the fine is discernable by the ability of the criminal to pay....

making arbitary numbers that mean next to nothing to some segments of society do NOT act as a deterrent.

 

[Kenai]

As I said to Rich_L, I don't think we're going to agree on this, I can certainly see your point, I just disagree with it. I consider that crimes should attract identical punishment, based on the crime, rather than punishment based on the criminal, to be fairer. You disagree, and that's fine. There is no right or wrong answer here, it all depends on the starting viewpoint

I agree with that principle. I just don't see that fine of £60 is an equal punishment to someone on £500 a week as it it to someone on £5000 a week. To one of them the punishment has had far greater impact and effect. You shouldn't be able to escape severity of punishment by virtue of having a lot of money.

Like you say, different starting points. I'll always view punishments as a means to deter a crime being commited and from that view means testing is the most logical implementation of a fining system you can get.

the 'type' of punishment should vary by crime, but with flexible leverages that can be tailored towards the circumstances of the criminal. i.e speeding should be a fine, but the size of the fine is discernable by the ability of the criminal to pay....

making arbitary numbers that mean next to nothing to some segments of society do NOT act as a deterrent.

I agree in principle but with regards motoring offences, we already have a better system than fining anyway in points. Getting points on your license affects everyone the same, rich people don't have a 120 point license to soften the blow, black people don't get twice as many points for commiting an offence etc. it is an entirely fair and unbiased system. Any money attached should be an admin fee if anything at all, not a fine.

edit - in fact that's a good metaphor.

Imagine for a moment that your driving license has a points total in balance to your wage. You earn £12k, you get 12 points, you earn £120k, you get 120 points and so on. It is clearly not fair that if you were caught speeding on £12k a year you were a quarter of the way to losing your license yet on £120k a year you were only 2.5% of the way there. That is clearly not a fair punishment system and if it worked like that, there would be uproar. So why then, are people perfectly happy that this is exactly how arbitrarily defined fixed fine amounts work?

 

[Rich_L]

I agree in principle but with regards motoring offences, we already have a better system than fining anyway in points. Getting points on your license affects everyone the same, rich people don't have a 120 point license to soften the blow, black people don't get twice as many points for commiting an offence etc. it is an entirely fair and unbiased system. Any money attached should be an admin fee if anything at all, not a fine.

That's true to a point, but I would point out that's perhaps because having points on your licence doesn't actually have any effect*, it's only when you get to disqualification that a punishment occurs - and then the argument of whether disqualification is a proportionate punishment for everyone starts. So having points affects everyone equally, in that it doesn't affect anyone.

*Apart from perhaps insurance premiums - which then goes back to a proportionate financial impact.

Fun fun fun

 

[Kenai]

Ok well you have a point there but it's as fair a system as we're going to manage in the real world isn't it? Everybody places roughly the same amount of 'value' to those points as everyone has the same number of points to 'use' and they all get punished by equivalent amounts of points

 

[Dolph]

As you say, I think it just depends on how you define 'punishment'. I consider the whole concept of 'punishment' to be intrinsically linked to the impact on the recipient of the punishment, and therefore the concept of proportionality is unavoidable. To illustrate two extreme examples, as favoured by most law lecturers (lol)

A punishment for theft is slap on the wrist of a defined force.

By an incredibly fortuitous combination of circumstances you have two individuals with two medical conditions:

One has a nerve injury so feels no pain in his wrists - a slap of the defined force will not be felt.
One has incredibly brittle bones - a slap of the defined force will shatter the person's wrist bones.

Is the punishment the same?

The action of the punishment is the same, the impact vastly different.

Were the criminals punished equally?

I would imagine that it would depend on prior knowledge, without any knowledge of either condition, they would be treated the same as any other criminal, with prior knowledge the nerve damage case would be treated as normal and the other more harshly. It seems to be one of those questions that relies on lack of information to create confusion...

you seem to insinuate that every crime has a victim - but this is not necessarily true...but simply because there is no victim doesnt mean that you shouldnt look at what the damage could have been to a 'potential' victim...

The point with speeding laws is that they nearly are victimless crimes totally, given the impact that exceeding the speed limit has on accident causes

However, that doesn't mean that 'victimless' crimes cannot exist, it all depends on the evidence that justifies the controlling of the risk. That the evidence for controlling the risk of speeding is minimal is irrelevant to the principle.

for example, say the guy HAD hit someone at 85mph or whatever through speeding.

The point I made earlier is that the chances of having an accident because he was speeding is miniscule, certainly not enough to warrant such a fine.

should the punishment be higher or lower than if he committed the crime and did NOT hit someone given that the potential to damage was apparent in both circumstances.

The potential to damage in this case is absolutely minimal though... That is the flaw of this approach and therefore this punishment. The chances of having an accident solely due to exceeding the speed limit are tiny.

IF he had hit someone (who became damaged because of this hit) and had been fined £180,000 which had been awarded to the victim would it make you happier?

If he had hit someone, it would have almost certainly been due to another cause other than exceeding the speed limit, and if that had been a fault activity, then he should have been charged for that and the compensatory fine/damages increased due to the extra damage of his speed, rather than charged for exceeding the speed limit.

if so, just close your eyes and pretend that every crime has a victim and then you should understand the severity of the fine.

but that is a stupid position to take. It is for the state to demonstrate the victim, or strong likelyhood of creating a victim, for the crime, not the rest of us to imagine there must be one due to the fact that is illegal.

i disagree.. the 'type' of punishment should vary by crime, but with flexible leverages that can be tailored towards the circumstances of the criminal. i.e speeding should be a fine, but the size of the fine is discernable by the ability of the criminal to pay....

making arbitary numbers that mean next to nothing to some segments of society do NOT act as a deterrent.

We do have a system that acts as a deterrent in this country at least though, it is just misused, and that is the points on the license idea. The problem is that the laws are badly written and enforced in a way that provides no tangible road safety benefit whatsoever, and hence the points idea is used unfairly and provides no indication of the driver's safety any more (hence why insurers now routinely ignore them if they were gained for speeding).

Fix the bad laws, get points to be meaningful again and we will get safer roads, not by advocating arbitary punishments for minor infractions with no percievable road safety impact.

 

[Glaucus]

The potential to damage in this case is absolutely minimal though... That is the flaw of this approach and therefore this punishment. The chances of having an accident solely due to exceeding the speed limit are tiny.

Two points

A) it is small but not tiny about 2% isn't it. and ~5% if you include excessive speed in adverse conditions.
B) Just because speed is not the main cause, does not mean that speed does not drastically increase damage and harm in crashes. The chance of damage to property/others is increased as is the risk to yourself.

As I said do you really think speeding should be legal?