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.
"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."
Seems great in theory. Stupid in application. Am I to submit my tax records from 2017 to the court for a minor traffic offense (which doesn't require a court appearance 99% of the time)?
Government should NEVER be using so-called "public safety" regulations to GENERATE REVENUE!
First, it makes cops nothing but highway robbers, who rob more than you would ever carry around in cash.
As local governments endlessly look for more money, it leads to ridiculous "traps" and extra-low limits, so that virtually everyone who drives is subject to the bad luck of having a cop lying in wait--and preying on people going to and from work is particularly disgusting. It makes EVERYONE a law-breaker, and therefore creates a distain for the law and the government (not that we need any more incentive for that).
The other thing is that the police always handing out traffic tickets, and never have time to investigate when our homes and/or cars are robbed. I've had houses robbed twice, and a car stolen once--the cops never lifted a finger to investigate any of these crimes, and wouldn't even drive me home when my car was stolen at the mall (cost me a small fortune for a taxi when I was poor as a church mouse).
If there's a safety issue, send the drivers to jail. But governments should NEVER be allowed to act as highway robbers, particularly after they've confiscated about half of the economy already.
I've been robbed more times from the police from traffic tickets than actual criminals.
Hell, I've even had a gun pointed in my face as I was robbed before. It's been 6 months, and they still haven't caught the robbers...yet the taxpayers are consistently punished.
OP is inadvertently backing into the wrong corner of the 'rich get away with it' argument.
Criminology has long struggled with the perception that the rich can buy their way out of trouble, and how that perception is unfair to the underprivileged because the poor can't buy their way out of trouble. We have advised policy makers and legislators to avoid income or wealth based punishments for just this very reason.
Think about it this way: why would we want to further that (mis)perception by putting a price tag on 'getting away with it' when we know only the wealthy can afford to pay the price of avoiding consequences...? It undermines both the law society is trying to enforce and the concept of equality under the law.
OP's idea might be one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but is loaded with unintended consequences.
Criminology has long struggled with the perception that the rich can buy their way out of trouble, and how that perception is unfair to the underprivileged because the poor can't buy their way out of trouble.
When it comes to posting bails/bonds, there is a huge disparity; why should some be released pending trial while others sit in jail for months?.
Are we not treating the poor as having been found guilty?.
Nahh...everyone just thinks "oh, if I ever get rich I wouldn't want to pay" - kinda like why the poor vote against their own interests...you know, just in case they should win the lottery or something.
No, because it is a stupid idea. Fines are and should be based on the offense, not wealth or non wealth. However, as you probably are well aware, judges can and do reduce the fine (not increase it) if the offender goes to court and pleads his or her case.
When it comes to posting bails/bonds, there is a huge disparity; why should some be released pending trial while others sit in jail for months?.
Are we not treating the poor as having been found guilty?.
I get the point you are trying to make. However it is a fact that wealthier people often have the support systems necessary to satisfy the judge that they won't get into trouble again and will appear for trial. Also they more often have verifiable residences and employment. Poorer people often have none of these. That doesn't give much comfort that the average shakedown artist will show up for trial or be locate-able when the time comes.
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.
