Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Earl Grey wrote:It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.
...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.
Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.
Milkins! You been on the whacky baccy again? No one's talking about prison sentences.
A prison sentence hurts both rich and poor....
My point is simply that you should not (IMHO) try to bring social standing into crime punishment. I was merely pointing out that if a more heinous crime is commited then how do you upscale the punishment for the wealthy? The current system is the most equitable - everyone is treated the same.
If you applied the sliding scale logic to the everyday, say purchasing a car, then the seller would have to ask the purchaser details of income and then set the price accordingly. The car costs the same to make whoever buys it.
The punishment for a crime should cost the same whoever commits it.
Now, where's that Old Holborn tin of mine....?
You've got it bad, Milko!
Fortunately Dr E. Grey can diagnose it. What you have, to give it its full technical name, is a severe case of inappropriate extrapolation.
You extrapolate things into areas that aren't in question. A person's social standing is not on the table here. Creating a market where everyone is means-tested is also not on the table.
Indeed a lot of things are not on the table here. For example any kind of punishment that hurts, no matter what your income, is definitely NOT on the table. Why? Because it hurts you no matter how minted you are. Here's a list of a few of them:
1) Prison sentences
2) Car clamping
3) Driving licence points
4) Driving licence revocation
5) Towing car away
6) Community service
7) Being sacked
They hurt and so you have an incentive not to repeat them whether you're rich or poor. I was not highlighting these.
Here's a list of things that have absolutely no disincentive effect on repeat offending to a very rich person:
1) Fines
This is what's of interest to me. The basic principle here is to HURT the offender sufficiently to make them think twice before re-offending.
Extending the argument to some kind of ghastly regime where everything, like buying a car, is treated as a punishment is not what was on the table. We don't want to punish people for buying a car.
Right....after you with the Old Holborn tin and Rizlas.....
...but you still overlook one established maxim that helps define what this country means - i.e. everyone is equal before the law.
There is nothing wrong in extrapolation to convey a message. A crime is a crime is a crime and we should all be judged and punished equally.
It's not a difficult concept.
Skin up.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
I'd suggest that if the fine for a specific act is is deemed to be £50 now then that is the base from which we start. Therefore if £50 is 50% of someone on the lowest level of income then those on the higher levels should pay the same percentage. Although someone earning £100.000 a week will be much more able to live off £50.000, so even then it's not exactly equal but it would be fairer than them still having £99.950 left.
How anyone can seriously consider fining someone £1000's for a parking offence is beyond my reckoning. I'm not wealthy and a standard parking fine would hurt. However, I have no desire to be treated differently to some other person parked in the bay next to me committing the same offence.
Wouldn't it be better to apply some kind of system whereby, if you get caught 3 times, you get banged up or have to do community service? That would probably be more of a deterrent - for everyone...
I suspect that wanting to see the wealthy being given massive fines is more likely borne out of the simple desire to see them lose money.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
I'd like to think that a punishment/fine is a punishment that will hopefully stop you from repeating the same, or other, offences. Just because you can afford the standard fine hundreds. or thousands, of times over is no incentive to not commit the same offence again.
Bluesbro' wrote:I'd like to think that a punishment/fine is a punishment that will hopefully stop you from repeating the same, or other, offences. Just because you can afford the standard fine hundreds. or thousands, of times over is no incentive to not commit the same offence again.
Ok, so a tramp and a banker are in the same park. The tramp drops an old pizza box on the ground and the banker drops his paper doily covered in caviar stains.
You fine the tramp nothing because he has no money. You fine the banker £50,000.
Which is more likely to stop offending? The banker, obviously. Well done. You've taught him a lesson.
All you've done with the tramp is given him the idea that he can do what he likes.
How is that equitable? Extreme cases maybe, but in the end fining the wealthy more just because they have more does not constitute fairness.
I would be more than happy to see a three strikes and you're banged up system. At least that way the tramp gets a decent meal and the banker gets to understand that some people have to eat sh!te and like it.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
A fixed penalty notice is given for some offences such as littering, speeding (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... ces/#speed) or parking offences, this is not a fine as only courts of law can issue fines. A fine as issued by a court of law does take income into account when determining the amount to be paid, up to the maximum allowed for the particular offence.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Bluesbro' wrote:I'd like to think that a punishment/fine is a punishment that will hopefully stop you from repeating the same, or other, offences. Just because you can afford the standard fine hundreds. or thousands, of times over is no incentive to not commit the same offence again.
Ok, so a tramp and a banker are in the same park. The tramp drops an old pizza box on the ground and the banker drops his paper doily covered in caviar stains.
You fine the tramp nothing because he has no money. You fine the banker £50,000.
Which is more likely to stop offending? The banker, obviously. Well done. You've taught him a lesson.
All you've done with the tramp is given him the idea that he can do what he likes.
How is that equitable? Extreme cases maybe, but in the end fining the wealthy more just because they have more does not constitute fairness.
I would be more than happy to see a three strikes and you're banged up system. At least that way the tramp gets a decent meal and the banker gets to understand that some people have to eat sh!te and like it.
What about taxes though Milkins?
If my chum down the slum earns 50k and pays 20% and myself, head of Kid Enterprises, lording over a vast financial empire that stretches far and wide also pays 20% on 5 gazillion...is that not seen as equal and entirely fair play?
Personally, I'd like to see fines based on income but with the caveat there there must be a max amount.
So for instance, speeding ticket is 100-500 based on the size of your empire.
btw....don't those Scandinavian chappies do the income fine thingy?
They tried fines related to income, or wealth, I can't remember which, about 30 years ago. It was scrapped because it didn't work, but I can't remember why.
Earlier in this thread there was mention of skinning up. I can remember that.
<dj.> wrote:They tried fines related to income, or wealth, I can't remember which, about 30 years ago. It was scrapped because it didn't work, but I can't remember why.
Earlier in this thread there was mention of skinning up. I can remember that.
bwahahaha
This reminds me of the recent legalising of smoking pot in Washington State. A referendum is held and the pro pot group is stunningly victorious. So they rent a city building for their victory celebration.
Forgetting that smoking even ciggarrettes is illegal in commercial buildings
Anyhoo...I had a point somewhere.
