Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it's more often the opposite of this that's the problem anyway. Rich people have the money, resources and connections to bail their asses out of taking responsibility for their wrongdoings. That they actually have to pay a fine that comes out as more than what they make every two minutes seems fair to me, I've paid 1/3rd of a months salary, doing much less over the limit than he did.
So what? Worry about yourself. Quit whining about whats fair and not fair. Breaking the law is expensive so either don't get caught or don't do it. The choice is yours.
No it's not, if that was correct, he wouldn't have had to do anything wrong to be fined.
He broke the law by speeding, so he's getting a fine because he was doing so. The size of the fine will be determined by a judge, based on the speed, the danger posed to others and the financial situation of the perpetrator. None of which means he's being fined for being rich.
When the fine is determined primarily by a factor that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope and nature of the infraction, then that factor is primarily what he's being fined for. If he were being fined for breaking the law, then the fine wouldn't be determined by the size of his bank account, which has nothing to do with the nature or severity of his infraction. The infraction is merely the means by which the government gets to steal more from his pocketbook.
He broke the law by speeding, so he's getting a fine because he was doing so. The size of the fine will be determined by a judge, based on the speed, the danger posed to others and the financial situation of the perpetrator. None of which means he's being fined for being rich.
Oh ok... so that has to work both ways, you do realize that? How about some low life junkie who got caught while speeding to the crack house? He has no job with documented income so we'll let him off with warnings and a good lesson on the dangers of speeding.
So what? Worry about yourself. Quit whining about whats fair and not fair. Breaking the law is expensive so either don't get caught or don't do it. The choice is yours.
I was unaware that simply disagreeing with you constituted whining.
I was also unaware that as an adult member of a society I should not have opinions on how the law is enforced when I either vote, debate or engage in politics.
And having broken the law several times, I've always paid my fines, in full, within 5 working days, yes it's money that's not always great to part with, but I'm aware that the law as it stands says that what I do is illegal. I have not once questioned that or said I shouldn't be fined for it.
But you say breaking the law is expensive, and that's the point, it shouldn't be less of a punishment for someone simply because they have a higher net worth, if the law is to be enforced equally, and fines are they way they enforce it, taking net worth or income into the equation helps equalize the ramifications of the penalty.
It's by no means perfect, but in my opinion, and obviously the people of Switzerland, it's better than the current alternative, which is essentially to let them walk.
So what you prefer is that people with money ca treat the roads like their personal racetracks, because the tickets will have no real effect on them?
How is that better? Having it like that, you might as well just stop pulling over cars costing more than $100k, because you know the ticket will have no effect on their driving.
There are other penalties besides monetary ones.
What if we treated everything based on percentages, just to be 'fair'? Milk, anywhere from free to $1,000,000/gallon (for Bill Gates). Same for bread. Armed robbery? How about 50% of your life expectancy? A 70 year old would get 5 years. A 20 year old gets 30 years. After all, the 20 year old may as well go on a robbing spree because he has so much time to live.
Oh ok... so that has to work both ways, you do realize that? How about some low life junkie who got caught while speeding to the crack house? He has no job with documented income so we'll let him off with warnings and a good lesson on the dangers of speeding.
That's why, like I've stated in a previous post, I think this system alone is inadequate, there needs to be other punishments in addition to this, to factor in such an occasion too. However, there would obviously be a minimum level of which the fine would not go under, as well as a maximum, of which the fine cannot exceed.
If the junkie was intoxicated he would of course be prosecuted for that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
When the fine is determined primarily by a factor that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope and nature of the infraction, then that factor is primarily what he's being fined for. If he were being fined for breaking the law, then the fine wouldn't be determined by the size of his bank account, which has nothing to do with the nature or severity of his infraction. The infraction is merely the means by which the government gets to steal more from his pocketbook.
I disagree.
Though the size of his bank account has nothing to do with the infraction, it does have something to with the results of the penalty, when it's monetary. It's a change from giving the same ticket for an equal offense, to giving a similarly (or as close to it as possible) reaction to said offense, as far as the results of that reaction go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnytang24
There are other penalties besides monetary ones.
What if we treated everything based on percentages, just to be 'fair'? Milk, anywhere from free to $1,000,000/gallon (for Bill Gates). Same for bread. Armed robbery? How about 50% of your life expectancy? A 70 year old would get 5 years. A 20 year old gets 30 years. After all, the 20 year old may as well go on a robbing spree because he has so much time to live.
Life expectancy would be a terribly poor basis for evaluation, there's too many individual factors playing in. And again, some countries have open discussions on whether or not Income tax should be ended all together and then only taxing goods, putting a higher tax on luxury products than life necessities, such as healthy food etc.
I was also unaware that as an adult member of a society I should not have opinions on how the law is enforced when I either vote, debate or engage in politics.
Yet at the same time you are completely cavalier with how the law impacts others. Your argument is not about how much you have to pay in fines, you are more worried about what others have to pay. None of this impacts you at all, its in your head. Your water bill is relatively more expensive than it is for a "rich" person, no? Why not work to change that? Or how about insurance premiums? Even if you and a "rich" person drove the same exact car, had the same record do you still believe that they should have to pay markedly more... I mean they would just be crashing into cars and buildings otherwise, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85
But you say breaking the law is expensive, and that's the point, it shouldn't be less of a punishment for someone simply because they have a higher net worth, if the law is to be enforced equally, and fines are they way they enforce it, taking net worth or income into the equation helps equalize the ramifications of the penalty.
Fines are a problem for everyone, however some have found good work around. Good for them.
Yet at the same time you are completely cavalier with how the law impacts others. Your argument is not about how much you have to pay in fines, you are more worried about what others have to pay. None of this impacts you at all, its in your head. Your water bill is relatively more expensive than it is for a "rich" person, no? Why not work to change that? Or how about insurance premiums? Even if you and a "rich" person drove the same exact car, had the same record do you still believe that they should have to pay markedly more... I mean they would just be crashing into cars and buildings otherwise, right?
Fines are a problem for everyone, however some have found good work around. Good for them.
I disagree that it's all in my head. A constant discussion about what the law should entail and how it should be enforced is one of the things that I think is good for a society.
I also firmly believe there's a distinct difference between buying a service or product and being fined for a violation of a law.
I'll say this though, it would likely be be more effective to sentence them to community service, in addition to a fine, which, of course would be a lot lower than a million bucks. Seeing as that debate seems not to be very prevalent these days though, income of wealth based fines is a good compromise.
I actually agree with that. Thought speeding that excessively would render you without a license for at least a year (probably 3), in jail for 6 months (generally serving 2/3rds) in addition to a ticket (in the $2k range) in Norway, I think a really hefty community service punishment would be much more fruitful. Substitute that penalty with the much harsher 9 Months (all served, no "discount" for good behavior) doing community service, in addition to the loss of drivers license, and the behavior might just change. At least for a few months.
I will say, I generally think community service should be used in a much much more, instead of spending a lot of money keeping people inactive in a prison, use them for something that benefits society, which in turns lessens the cost of their punishment. There are very few non-violent crimes that couldn't be sentenced with community service, maybe sometimes linked with staying at a semi-open housing facility. (Curfew times, etc, but the ablitiy to move freely in society when complying with the rules.)
Those are pretty heavy penalties you're talking about for simple speeding. I was thinking more in terms of maybe 10 hours of community service for speeding that is not highly dangerous.
Do you ever speed yourself? Have you ever been ticketed for it?
Those are pretty heavy penalties you're talking about for simple speeding. I was thinking more in terms of maybe 10 hours of community service for speeding that is not highly dangerous.
Do you ever speed yourself? Have you ever been ticketed for it?
I usually drive well within what I find safe, which does not always constitutes driving within the speed limits.
So yes, I do speed, and yes I've been fined on two occasions.
One of them was $1000 plus two marks on my license (8 is max, you lose it for 3-6 months at that point), in an average speed measurement I was clocked doing 63 Mph in a 50 Mph zone.
The other ticket (got it recently, in June) was $685 and two more marks on my license (they go away after 3 years btw) for doing (laser trap, so top speed measurement) 45 Mph in a 31 Mph zone (which I honestly thought was a 37 Mph zone due to bad sign postings). In that last occurrence I was a mere 2 mph off losing my license on the spot.
I think the community service should be enough to hurt, in addition to a fine, at the same time I think (at least in Norway) the speed limits should be addressed more frequently as well and more focus should be put on dangerous drivers all together, not just speeders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
