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.
If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime.
If it would be up to me, a conviction of a crime would result in the total forfeiture of all assets.
Criminals should be funding the criminal justice system, not the tax-payers.
I agree. I've been dirt poor and am considered upper middle class now. I don't want to pay the fine for speeding or any other infraction, never have wanted to, so I follow the laws.
I agree. I've been dirt poor and am considered upper middle class now. I don't want to pay the fine for speeding or any other infraction, never have wanted to, so I follow the laws.
Yup. Me too. I try not to speed but Massachusetts got me on camera recently. DOH! I deserved it.
If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime.
If it would be up to me, a conviction of a crime would result in the total forfeiture of all assets.
Criminals should be funding the criminal justice system, not the tax-payers.
...and if you CAN afford it then you're entitled to do whatever is "in your budget"? That'd be cool - make a lot of money for crimes that will then fund your bigger crimes - that's damn near a career!
Total forfeiture for a $20 parking ticket? For driving 60 in a 55? For jaywalking? For throwing down a gum wrapper?
In the interests of complete 'fairness for all', and concordant with 'leveling the playing field', why not extend this concept to purchasing power equity. We already do this in many ways, isn't it time for TRUE EQUALITY?
So even the poorest among us can afford a new Lexus, let's subsidize the cost for lower income folks, while wealthier people pay a premium to make up the difference?
�� Yay !!!
"For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions. Equity requires punishment that is equally felt."
The fine is for the specific crime with no respect towards the individual committing it. It is a fundamental tenet of a just law. Variable fines as means testing simply devalues the emphasis on the crime itself. If someone wants to address the equity issue they need to work the back end of disabling the wealthy from getting out of paying for their crimes and doing the requisite time or fine.
A good example would be the Texas teen "Affluenza" case a few years ago. Don't baby the criminals at the extreme ends just apply unilateral consistency. My analogy to this is if you make 'allowances' for stupidity and poor judgment you are encouraging it.
There's a reason "Justice" is portrayed as wearing a blindfold. And it infers that the "action / behavior / crime" is what is to be determined, the degree of impact to societal construct of the behavior and the level of restitution, loss of privileges or incarceration.
If the justice system wants to be inventive with fines, I say go after and enforce all the distracted drivers with mobile devices who are a menace to safe roadways and fine them progressively as in
1st offense: $250 fine 100 hours community service
2nd offense: $500 fine and suspended license for 3 months, 200 hours community service
3rd Offense: $1000 fine and suspended license for a year, 300 hours community service
4th Offense: $5000 fine and permanent loss of drivers license one year in jail
This is the type of 'progressive' fines I want to see as it would make it safer for everyone that is a responsible considerate driver. Wonder how effective the behavior modification would be?
Then direct the fines collected to fix roadways (benefits everyone) and to fund public transit, so the addicted device people can then play with their devices to their hearts content and not endanger lives and clog up the roadways in individual vehicles.
As for the implication that a wealthy person wouldn't care (Zuckerberg example)- well, he'll have to pay more insurance and all the related costs and associated penalties, which may still add up to loss of drivers license eventually if the law is applied equally. The problem is when the Law enforcement makes exceptions for the wealthy - 'Affluenza' type.
"For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions. Equity requires punishment that is equally felt."
The problem is this solution does the same thing whilst inverting the offenders. Imagine a bunch of dirt poor people careening around with no care for the traffic laws.
That's an even greater threat to public safety, not only because the poor are so much more numerous than the affluent, but because the poor are the people the most likely to not have a drivers license, much experience driving, and cars that are in the worst condition, have the most inferior "performance profile", and lack modern/advanced safety features.
It is a terrible idea from the perspective of public safety.
Last edited by phantompilot; 03-16-2018 at 11:01 PM..
Equal in terms of IMPACT - a $500 fine is nothing to someone making $250k a year...the fine is meant to be a deterrent. It is not the same level of deterrent if income is high compared to someone making $25k a year.
We aren't talking about crimes that receive sentences - only ones that result in fines. Certainly it doesn't make sense to go beyond minor offenses settled by fines alone - and the concept isn't meant to be applied in such cases.
So you're talking about infraction only, and then the scheme is designed merely to achieve proportionality so that the monetary penalty will have the same economic deterrent? So in that example, the fine for the 25K earner would be only 1/10th or $50? I think I get that part. I just see so many objections.
For starters what do you do about people who fly beneath the tax radar? They would be your "free riders". And a lot of those people are already posing problems for society: They might be drug dealers, or pimps, or thieves, or anyone involved with otherwise lawful businesses where income is frequently not reported or under-reported.
Logistically this would also have a lot of issues. Unless you integrated the collections process with the income tax system I don't see how it would be possible for the courts to properly implement the fee schedule. What do you do with people that are behind on their taxes or in the midst of filing or amending a previous return, or who have experienced a change in income from the prior tax year to the current year?
But beyond just the practical and operational flaws, there are four major Constitutional problems that I can see with this approach:
first that the rationale behind it contradicts and defies a fundamental principle of jurisprudence, which is oft quoted as "Let the punishment fit the crime". Meaning that the penalty imposed should be proportional to the severity of the offense. Not to the socioeconomic status of the offender. This seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And secondly that the scheme relies on the offender being forced to incriminate himself by providing personal financial information to the court. It seems to violate the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
And if the law is framed as a contract in equity (equity being the basic principle of the proportionality argument), then it would bring traffic offenses back within the auspices of the Constitution again, and under the Seventh Amendment, any party to a suit at common law with a demand over $20 is entitled to a trial by jury.
And that last element gives rise to the fourth issue I see; If the preceding issue were in play, then the state would have to expend a lot more money to get these funds, and I think it would result in a situation where anyone who appears to be a person of means would be targeted or profiled by law enforcement and people who appear to be poor would be ignored...thus creating disparate impact and taking us back again to violations of the 14A right of all persons to have the equal protection of the law (or in this case from the law).
So you're talking about infraction only, and then the scheme is designed merely to achieve proportionality so that the monetary penalty will have the same economic deterrent? So in that example, the fine for the 25K earner would be only 1/10th or $50? I think I get that part. I just see so many objections.
For starters what do you do about people who fly beneath the tax radar? They would be your "free riders". And a lot of those people are already posing problems for society: They might be drug dealers, or pimps, or thieves, or anyone involved with otherwise lawful businesses where income is frequently not reported or under-reported.
Logistically this would also have a lot of issues. Unless you integrated the collections process with the income tax system I don't see how it would be possible for the courts to properly implement the fee schedule. What do you do with people that are behind on their taxes or in the midst of filing or amending a previous return, or who have experienced a change in income from the prior tax year to the current year?
But beyond just the practical and operational flaws, there are four major Constitutional problems that I can see with this approach:
first that the rationale behind it contradicts and defies a fundamental principle of jurisprudence, which is oft quoted as "Let the punishment fit the crime". Meaning that the penalty imposed should be proportional to the severity of the offense. Not to the socioeconomic status of the offender. This seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And secondly that the scheme relies on the offender being forced to incriminate himself by providing personal financial information to the court. It seems to violate the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
And if the law is framed as a contract in equity (equity being the basic principle of the proportionality argument), then it would bring traffic offenses back within the auspices of the Constitution again, and under the Seventh Amendment, any party to a suit at common law with a demand over $20 is entitled to a trial by jury.
And that last element gives rise to the fourth issue I see; If the preceding issue were in play, then the state would have to expend a lot more money to get these funds, and I think it would result in a situation where anyone who appears to be a person of means would be targeted or profiled by law enforcement and people who appear to be poor would be ignored...thus creating disparate impact and taking us back again to violations of the 14A right of all persons to have the equal protection of the law (or in this case from the law).
In Finland, income/tax info is available online to the police so it is easy to calculate the fine immediately but what's wrong with it taking longer - being notified by mail within 10 days?
As for equal protection - what does that actually apply to? Many other things are proportional to wealth or income such as income tax, property tax, bail, child support, etc. Does "equal" have to mean in absolute terms? - apparently not.
...and if you CAN afford it then you're entitled to do whatever is "in your budget"? That'd be cool - make a lot of money for crimes that will then fund your bigger crimes - that's damn near a career!
Total forfeiture for a $20 parking ticket? For driving 60 in a 55? For jaywalking? For throwing down a gum wrapper?
We don’t have jaywalking laws here. That’s state specific. I think the law should even be town/city specific. One in downtown Chicago or New York has a better chance of getting a parking ticket than in the middle of no mans land. And speeding tickets should have higher penalties if it’s a more populated area. But yes, after so many tickets one needs to suffer consequences for breaking the law. For parking tickets in Chicago if fines are not paid they will “boot” your car!
I don’t agree with different fines for different income levels though. I think they should just be more strict on when your license is susp for violations.
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.
If you can pay the fine do the crime! That's what I always say.
