€54000 speeding ticket!!!

[Hibbyradge]

I like this idea. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454)

How much of a deterrant is a £60 fine to a millionaire?

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime! :wink:

[Lucius Apuleius]

Remember something similar a few years back with someone throwing a crisp packet out a cat got a huge fine for the same reason.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Remember something similar a few years back with someone throwing a crisp packet out a cat got a huge fine for the same reason.

From the RSPCA?

[Lucius Apuleius]

From the RSPCA?

Lol. Bloody predictive text!

[Future17]

Remember something similar a few years back with someone throwing a crisp packet out a cat got a huge fine for the same reason.

I think Germany has a similar approach (i.e. linking fines to income). Marco Reus recently admitted driving without a licence for years - this was even more galling as he was the face of Dortmund's club car sponsorship deal and had personal sponsorship from a petrol company.

His fine was in the E500,000 region.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30533608

[HibsMax]

I hate the idea personally. Punishment should not be linked to how much you earn. If the person is a repeat offender then the punishment should change over time, eventually leading to jail time if necessary.

[Future17]

I hate the idea personally. Punishment should not be linked to how much you earn. If the person is a repeat offender then the punishment should change over time, eventually leading to jail time if necessary.

But a fine should be both punishment and deterrent from committing future offences. A £100 fine is probably immaterial to a millionaire, so does a standard fine scale not discriminate against those with less money?

[Sir David Gray]

But a fine should be both punishment and deterrent from committing future offences. A £100 fine is probably immaterial to a millionaire, so does a standard fine scale not discriminate against those with less money?

What happens if you're unemployed in those countries?

Do you just get away with committing offences like speeding and littering etc?

If the fines are based on income, how can you be fined if you don't have any income?

[Future17]

What happens if you're unemployed in those countries?

Do you just get away with committing offences like speeding and littering etc?

If the fines are based on income, how can you be fined if you don't have any income?

Employment income is not the only type of income there is.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I assume that each person's circumstances are taken into account and, therefore fines could be paid by instalments or, in extreme cases, alternatives such as custodial sentences could be considered if appropriate.

[Hibbyradge]

What happens if you're unemployed in those countries?

Do you just get away with committing offences like speeding and littering etc?

If the fines are based on income, how can you be fined if you don't have any income?

What happens if you're poor in this country?

Fines are handed down, they go unpaid, and some people are eventually jailed because they can't afford to pay up.

Jail then becomes less of a deterrent and crime increases.

It's lunacy. Surely there are better ways to punish people with no money that ask them for money.

[HibsMax]

But a fine should be both punishment and deterrent from committing future offences. A £100 fine is probably immaterial to a millionaire, so does a standard fine scale not discriminate against those with less money?
Only if the punishment for repeat offenses is financial.

I get the point you are making but what you're talking about is far-reaching. Should rich people pay higher parking tickets? Should they pay more for every crime that carries with it a financial penalty? I think if you want to hit people where it hurts then you need to revamp the whole penalty system. If someone is caught for speeding, ban them from driving for a week. If that affects them financially because they need to drive for work, that's just tough. Don't break the law then. A penalty system that affects everyone equally is what is needed but I don't think that extends to higher fines for people who have more money. There's no way that a person should be punished harsher just because they can afford it.

[Future17]

Should rich people pay higher parking tickets?

I think they should.


Should they pay more for every crime that carries with it a financial penalty?

I can't think of any crimes (which attract a financial penalty) that would be worthy of an exception.


I think if you want to hit people where it hurts then you need to revamp the whole penalty system. If someone is caught for speeding, ban them from driving for a week. If that affects them financially because they need to drive for work, that's just tough. Don't break the law then.

I think the first part of your point here could be part of a punishment system, but I don't think it would work for all. For example, if someone is really rich they could pay to have someone else drive them without suffering any real inconvenience or expense. Alternatively, people of any level of wealth may not drive much at all in the typical week for a variety of reasons and so such a penalty wouldn't affect them.

If this type of penalty were to be used, it would have to be in very specific circumstances where the judge considered it would have a punitive effect and would be an effective deterrent to the offender reoffending.


A penalty system that affects everyone equally is what is needed but I don't think that extends to higher fines for people who have more money. There's no way that a person should be punished harsher just because they can afford it.

I may be reading this wrong, but these two sentences seems contradictory. If you want a penalty system that affects everyone equally, I don't think there's any way of achieving that (when it comes to financial penalties) without fining people differing amounts depending on their circumstances.

You could be onto something with regards to different types of sanction being available to judges, but I think punishment and deterrent have to be at the core of every sentencing decision.

[HibsMax]

I think they should.

Why should richer people pay higher fines? Because they've been more successful in other aspects of their life? That, to me, is insane. Personal net worth should have zero bearing on any punishment dealt out.

If we take a slightly different look at this, should a single father with 3 young kids pay a smaller fine than a single man living in his parent's basement? Clearly one man is going to suffer greater than the other. Is that fair?

Two people committing the exact same crime should be dealt the same punishment and anything else would be unconstitutional. I understand the argument that the punishments are not the same since $100, relatively speaking, means a lot more to some people than to others but, and this is not a primary reason for dismissing the idea, think of the administration required. Before assessing a fine you would have to do a full background check on the individual and figure out their entire net worth. income, property, house, possessions, savings, pension, monthly expenditure, etc.

My last statement in the other post could have been written better. I just meant that the penalty for a crime should be the same for everyone (adults, I'm not talking about minors), regardless of age, sex, race, wealth, religion, etc.

[Future17]

Why should richer people pay higher fines? Because they've been more successful in other aspects of their life? That, to me, is insane. Personal net worth should have zero bearing on any punishment dealt out.

I think I've already answered this above; a fine as a punishment for a crime should be set at such a level so that it actually amounts to a punishment and deterrent to hopefully reduce the likelihood of the individual offender (or others) committing similar crimes in future. Obviously a fine at a set level would be less of a punishment for someone with lots of money compared to someone with very little.

As an aside, it's nothing to do with success. Not all rich(er) people are rich(er) because they have been successful.

Can you explain to me the purpose of fining someone an amount which would essentially be immaterial to them?


If we take a slightly different look at this, should a single father with 3 young kids pay a smaller fine than a single man living in his parent's basement? Clearly one man is going to suffer greater than the other. Is that fair?

I don't see how one would suffer more than the other. My understanding of what happens in Finland is that the fine is set at a punitive level based on an individual's ability to pay, so the two people in your example would potentially be fined differently based on their means. If the system achieved that successfully, they would both suffer equally.


Two people committing the exact same crime should be dealt the same punishment and anything else would be unconstitutional. I understand the argument that the punishments are not the same since $100, relatively speaking, means a lot more to some people than to others but, and this is not a primary reason for dismissing the idea, think of the administration required. Before assessing a fine you would have to do a full background check on the individual and figure out their entire net worth. income, property, house, possessions, savings, pension, monthly expenditure, etc.

I don't think the administration would be that difficult. A court would simply tell you the information you were required to provide and use it to make a relatively simple calculation. There would, of course, have to be submissions accepted for any mitigating circumstances not covered as part of the standard information, but it wouldn't be difficult administratively.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm uncomfortable with it personally. The principle should be equality under the law. The way to get the wealthier in society to contribute more is via progressive taxation.

[Future17]

I'm uncomfortable with it personally. The principle should be equality under the law. The way to get the wealthier in society to contribute more is via progressive taxation.

I do understand people's objections to the Finnish system, but I would ask them to explain why we use fines in our criminal justice system at all? Is it just a money-making exercise for the state?

[HibsMax]

I think I've already answered this above; a fine as a punishment for a crime should be set at such a level so that it actually amounts to a punishment and deterrent to hopefully reduce the likelihood of the individual offender (or others) committing similar crimes in future. Obviously a fine at a set level would be less of a punishment for someone with lots of money compared to someone with very little.
That is why the punishment shouldn't be financial. Speed enough times and you lose your license. That is a fair punishment. Apart from anything else you've removed a dangerous driver from the roads.


As an aside, it's nothing to do with success. Not all rich(er) people are rich(er) because they have been successful.
That's just nit-picking. I know there are trust fund babies, etc. but you are still wanting to punish someone with a bigger stick because they happen to have more money (which may come from hard work or maybe they inherited it). Regardless, if you institute a policy of fining richer people more heavily you will obviously capture hard-working people with that net.


Can you explain to me the purpose of fining someone an amount which would essentially be immaterial to them?
It appears that you think that all rich people don't care about money (based solely on your comments in this thread). Just because a person is rich doesn't mean they enjoy wasting money paying fines - you don't get rich in the first place if you have such a cavalier attitude about money. Sure, some people won't care but there are other who do. A secondary purpose is to raise money for the city, county, district or whatever.


I don't see how one would suffer more than the other. My understanding of what happens in Finland is that the fine is set at a punitive level based on an individual's ability to pay, so the two people in your example would potentially be fined differently based on their means. If the system achieved that successfully, they would both suffer equally.
They wouldn't suffer differently under Finland's laws but I was not talking about Finland. I was giving another example that didn't involve rich people at all, but two people to whom $100 could mean totally different things. The father has less money to feed / clothe his kids, the single guy living in his parent's basement has less money for video games. My point was that if you are going to fine rich people more heavily then you need consider everyone's ability to pay fines....which is what you were doing so I get your point.


I don't think the administration would be that difficult. A court would simply tell you the information you were required to provide and use it to make a relatively simple calculation. There would, of course, have to be submissions accepted for any mitigating circumstances not covered as part of the standard information, but it wouldn't be difficult administratively.
Think of how simple a tax audit is, this is the same thing except rather than assessing taxes you're assessing a fine. No thanks. You might think that sounds easy which leads me to believe you've never been part of a tax audit.

[HibsMax]

i do understand people's objections to the finnish system, but i would ask them to explain why we use fines in our criminal justice system at all? is it just a money-making exercise for the state?
yes
(sometimes)

This is something which is very fresh in my mind because of the recent Department of Justice report released last week about Ferguson, Missouri. They found that African Americans have been systematically targeted, unfairly, and as a result have paid a disproportionate amount of fines. This is more of a race issue but the fact remains, some municipalities use fines as a way of raising funds. Scandalous.