No, because they are completely irrelevant. Punitive fines works because they punish and therefore act as a deterrent. If you can afford the fine without batting an eyelid, the deterrent doesn't work. For offences like these I think means based testing is highly appropriate and the only way to ensure that they equally punish / deter everyone.
Serves him right
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
No, because they are completely irrelevant. Punitive fines works because they punish and therefore act as a deterrent. If you can afford the fine without batting an eyelid, the deterrent doesn't work. For offences like these I think means based testing is highly appropriate and the only way to ensure that they equally punish / deter everyone.
Then use a punishment other than fines. Fines should only be levelled as compensatory cash anyway, with a little extra for overheads.
And once again, punishments in the UK are based on the crime, and the cost/consequences of the crime, not the criminal. It does not have a greater impact when a rich person commits a crime than when a poor person does, therefore the punishment should be the same. The problem is we are using money to punish, why not change that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
So the [victimless] crime is more or less bad depending on who does it?
Dolph's spot on here. The punishment (I CBA to go into victimless crimes right now) should be equal. Whether you're a black man, white man, rich man, poor man, martian man, gay man, whatever. It's called equlity.
There isn't really for victimless crimes, but then the clue is in the name
The issue is that many things that are currently crimes (including creeping a few miles an hour over the arbitrary number on the road sign) shouldn't be crimes at all.The solution to poor laws is to deal with the law, not to try and fix the punishment to get the supposed desired effect that is largely proved to be pointless.
That doesn't work though - if you start letting people drive at 10mph over the limit, how do you suddenly justify prosecuting those who drive 11mph over the limit?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting - only prosecuting speeding drivers if they injure someone?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting - only prosecuting speeding drivers if they injure someone?
Not quite, I would go away from the arbitrary speed enforcement, and move back to a model of prosecuting for bad or dangerous driving, keep the points model (it worked really well before the speed kills obsession started and points stopped being a meaningful indicator of risktaking) and charge costs for prosecuting. I'd also move away from fixed penalty notices and put everything back through the courts.
The road safety issue isn't caused by exceeding a speed limit, but by inappropriate use of speed, which is a completely different issue, along with a whole other variety of dangerous driving issues. We need a system that actually works to tackle risk and dangerous behaviour, and punishes it accordingly, rather than one that punishes people for behaviour that carries no additional risk.
Stop worrying about the number, and start worrying about the behaviour.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
The Swiss need to stop trying to kill the car and deal with their appalling gun murder rate.
Jesus ...that's not Karma ...that's just dreadful. Ok for sure what he did was stupid, but I dread to think what his face looked like after this ...it could well have snapped his neck.
if not taking salary into account when a fine is to be made against the person then how about ceasing the criminals car this would kinda of work in proportion with salaray as if they could afford to buy a car then this would be dependant on the salary they earn as you wont see everyone driving high power BMW Merc's etc.. etc..
I know its not exactly do able as people will have finace and will more than likely need a car to earn a living but that in itsself would be a reason not to do stupid speeds
I know its not exactly do able as people will have finace and will more than likely need a car to earn a living but that in itsself would be a reason not to do stupid speeds
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 1,424
- Location
- Somerset
I agree with Dolph 100% in regards to his last post and this quote should be all that needs to be said about speeding.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
I dont agree with the fine, it is ridiculous and as has been said many times it should not be linked to you're ability to pay.
However fines in the UK are also often linked to your ability to pay so lets get that one right - not motoring offences as a rule.
And to the 'he is doing no harm' brigade, do think it through as there can be no justification of doing those speeds on a public highway.
Walking around with a loaded AK47 is doing no harm, going out to steal is doing no harm - much the same as going 180 mph on a public highway is doing no harm.
All against the law and punishable and quite rightly
However fines in the UK are also often linked to your ability to pay so lets get that one right - not motoring offences as a rule.
And to the 'he is doing no harm' brigade, do think it through as there can be no justification of doing those speeds on a public highway.
Walking around with a loaded AK47 is doing no harm, going out to steal is doing no harm - much the same as going 180 mph on a public highway is doing no harm.
All against the law and punishable and quite rightly
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
So the [victimless] crime is more or less bad depending on who does it?
Dolph's spot on here. The punishment (I CBA to go into victimless crimes right now) should be equal. Whether you're a black man, white man, rich man, poor man, martian man, gay man, whatever. It's called equlity.
If it's called equality then the punishment should affect all the people who commit the offence equally, no?
No, because (for about the 5th time in the thread), punishments are based on the crime, not the criminal. If you want to tear up centuries of British justice, then fine, but at least give a good and valid reason for doing so, rather than the usual jealousy or class warfare, preferably one working around how the severity of the crime changes depending on what the criminal earns.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Another two cars whose drivers should be treated equally . . .
A Koenigsegg CCXR worth £1.2m and a £350,000 Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SuperVeloce were both clamped outside the Qatari owned Harrods store in Knightsbridge on the afternoon of 22 July. The council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea said that £120 penalty charge notices were issued, but the cars were released for £70 each as the fines were paid within 14 days.
LINK
Well, I 'm sure that those guys will be more careful about where they park in future!
An eye-watering £70 penalty for the victimless crime of illegal parking outside your own corner shop - what IS this country coming to
LINK
Well, I 'm sure that those guys will be more careful about where they park in future!
An eye-watering £70 penalty for the victimless crime of illegal parking outside your own corner shop - what IS this country coming to
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It depends on the crime to an extent possibly but I'd have to disagree, we use the law to attempt to correct the effects of the harm and also to punish the transgressor. They may be partially separable but the way we have evolved our legal system it has to fulfil both those roles.
It rather depends on what you are imposing the fines for, if it's purely a sum based on the harm caused then a flat rate according to the crime is the way to do it, if you wish to impose a punitive fine to act as a deterrent then varying the fine according to income begins to make more sense since otherwise the deterrent effect will vary according to the wealth of the individual. There's no way to completely mitigate the circumstances of the individuals and the effect that the punishment will have upon them so we can only try to make it fair - how we do that is a matter for debate.
Varying the fine according to wealth means that the deterrent effect of a fine might be roughly equivalent but it's unfair because a greater or lesser monetary sum is taken from the individual. If we don't vary the fine then it's unfair because relatively speaking a rich person is penalised less as a proportion of their income than a poor person. There's no absolute right or wrong to the question, you just happen to disagree with the unfairness as is present in Switzerland, others disagree with the unfairness that is fixed penalties in other parts of the World c'est la vie.
Motoring fines are earnings related here, but they are capped to a maximum of x for x offence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,138
- Location
- Burscough
The same could be said about footballers incurring fines, the amount they are fined is so pitifully small that it is just the loose change they have in their pockets. It's hardly going to put them off. The same with this driver. I thoroughly endorse fines based on a fraction of your wealth.