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."
So unemployed will be allowed to break all the traffic rules they want?
Just like you'd have a max so Bill Gates wouldn't be fined a million dollars there could certainly be a minimum as well - such an easy fix there's no need to even mention it. Try to comment on the substance, not the frivolous.
Legal punishments are set (in theory at least) according to what society feels a particular crime is worth, without regard for the status of the offender. Thus, premeditated murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment while jaywalking carries a minor fine. And so, both a millionaire and a pauper should get a life sentence for premeditated murder and a minor fine for jaywalking.
Adjusting the punishment according to the financial capacity of the offender is, IMO, no different than adjusting the term of imprisonment based on how much being imprisoned would affect the offender. If you have two people who commit the same crime, should the one with family and friends who is a key player at his job and active in his community, and thus would have "everything to lose" by being confined, be jailed longer than the other who is a homeless bum with no friends and family, who wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced and may even benefit by being locked up?
Besides . . . the OP's idea does serious violence to the concept of "equal justice under law."
Legal punishments are set (in theory at least) according to what society feels a particular crime is worth, without regard for the status of the offender. Thus, premeditated murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment while jaywalking carries a minor fine. And so, both a millionaire and a pauper should get a life sentence for premeditated murder and a minor fine for jaywalking.
Adjusting the punishment according to the financial capacity of the offender is, IMO, no different than adjusting the term of imprisonment based on how much being imprisoned would affect the offender. If you have two people who commit the same crime, should the one with family and friends who is a key player at his job and active in his community, and thus would have "everything to lose" by being confined, be jailed longer than the other who is a homeless bum with no friends and family, who wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced and may even benefit by being locked up?
Besides . . . the OP's idea does serious violence to the concept of "equal justice under law."
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.
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.
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.
"If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime." EXACTLY!
In my area we have loads of rich tourists coming in to town over the Summer and they will sometimes park their "beemers" in spots where they know they will get a ticket but paying it is cheaper then the hassle of going to get a proper beach parking permit. The towns have wised up to this so they increased the fines for illegal parking but I'm sure some still do it to get that premium spot.
Fines such as for speeding should not be scaled because every driver has a choice to obey the limit or take a risk to speed and possibly have to pay up.
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.
