Yes you can as minimum and maximum fines can be applied, with means testing in-between.
£180,000 speding fine . . .
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Yes you can as minimum and maximum fines can be applied, with means testing in-between.
This is addresed by my 1) 2) post. I believe in deterrents. If a fine is the only punishment, it is also the only deterrent and thus must deter all people equally. You obviously do not share this view and view fining solely as means to recouping losses.
No you don't. You only have that if you assume that you set the lowest limits stupidly low. The minimal level for a fine for an action should be enough that it adequately represents the consequence of the action - then you scale up from there.
Means tested does not automatically mean that poor people would get free reign to commit crimes because they only get 50p parking fines.
I would argue that 1 and 2 are, or should be, intrinsically linked. In determining what should be a crime at all, the impact of the crime on either society or other invididuals has to be evaluated, and the punishment should then be related to that impact. If there is no or minimal impact, it is debatable whether there should be a crime created at all.
Given that, in the creation of a crime, you have already done an analysis on the impact of the crime, and therefore have an idea of how 'desireable' it is to eliminate that crime, surely the punishment should be based on that idea?
In fact, most crimes, if fines were calculated on such a basis, would have higher fines than they do now, not lower, but that seems to be escaping many people.
But has nothing to do with the discussion.
I advocated that the fines should be a multiple of the losses to provide deterrent factors, but that applies across the board.
In the UK, fines are frequently set stupidly low compared to the impact of the crime on society...
Why not, they do now? The fines are levied but waived or paid back at peppercorn amounts by the poor as it is.
But we are talking about the principle of means testing. So that means nothing.
Which is why means testing should result in a minimum level fine, that will recover any losses etc. and then be scaled upwards from there.
we have point's so it is irrelevent discussing it in respective of motoring offences.
Is a millionaire deterred by a crime that has a fixed penalty of £100?
does a person on minimum wage deterred by a fixed penalty of £100?
This is why we have means testing often with a range, so fines can't exceed x-amount.
Because the whole CONCEPT of PUNISHMENT is based about the impact ON THE INDIVIDUAL!
If a punishment does not punish the individual, it is not a punishment.
It's like telling a man with no legs and no arms to stay in one place as a 'punishment'...
Christ!
So you do advocate that punishment should be based on the criminal not on the crime or the impact the crime has?
It is fair to treat people who do the same thing completely differently due to random factors unrelated to the crime.
At least we're clear
Again HOW are you treating them differently. a % is a percent and everyone is treated the same.
I thought we were talking about the principle of whether the actions or the actor determined the consequences?
That as well, but you seem to be missing the point that a % affects everyone equally. how you have come to the conclusion you are treating anyone differently.
No one said the system in the UK is perfect, but that does not mean means tested is fundamentally wrong.
??
Last edited:
It would only provide deterrent factors for some people though. Commit an act that 'costs' society £30 and get fined £100 is great for deterring some people but still barely even worth thinking about to the guy who pulls in £400 a day contracting.
Entirely irrelevant as I am discussing what I believe to a better system - to assume that such a replacement system automatically inherents every other flaw of the previous system is pointless and tantamount to being a strawman argument, you're assuming I want to set lower level fines ridiculously low, this is something I have not said.
You seem to be missing the point that the % puts the consequences of the crime on the criminal, not the crime.
I argue that people should be punished for the crime, not for unrelated factors such as wealth, gender, race, religion etc (yes, I include wealth along with those other factors). If we believe in equality, then the punishment has to be based on the crime, not on the criminal.
how do you figure that?
The percentage is the same percentage. Say 2% it does not change if someone is rich.
And it is based on the crime, Ie the maximum fine applicable. It is then calculated on %, it does not make any difference what the person is, wealth, religion or anything else.
Last edited:
The punishment should have an equal impact, based on the crime, to all.
Put it this way, a society decides that a crime of assault should incur a punishment of one punishment unit (PU).
1 punishment unit should reflect a penalty or sanction with an impact on the individual appropriate to the offence.
To a millionaire with a fulltime job, 1PU might be a fine of £1,000. (so no impact on his job or time, but a sufficient financial impact)
To someone with no job, 1PU might be no fine, (because he has no money anyway) but community service of a month.
It is about treating different people, differently, to ensure the same punishment applies to all.
Is it really that hard to understand?
You seem to be missing the point that the consequences of the crime, i.e. the IMPACT of any punishment, will vary depending on the individual's circumstances, unless a proportionate approach is taken to punishment.
Last edited:
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.
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.
The punishment should have an equal impact, based on the crime, to all.
Put it this way, a society decides that a crime of assault should incur a punishment of one punishment unit (PU).
1 punishment unit should reflect a penalty or sanction with an impact on the individual appropriate to the offence.
To a millionaire with a fulltime job, 1PU might be a fine of £1,000. (so no impact on his job or time, but a sufficient financial impact)
To someone with no job, 1PU might be no fine, (because he has no money anyway) but community service of a month.
It is about treating different people, differently, to ensure the same punishment applies to all.
Is it really that hard to understand?
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.
Edit:
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.
Last edited:
what does that acheive? someone might be able to do it a million times.
Mixing is the best, neither system is perfect.
Fixed fines means someone can buy there way above the law,
Unlimited fines may mean someone being charge 10million for shoplifting.
Where a drug addict who commits assault and a list of other things gets fined £10
Why does it have to be one or the other? A mix is a perfectly acceptable solution to a difficult problem.