Same Infraction, Same Punishment. Or Is It?
maniacripper
Join Date: 2004-01-13 Member: 25288Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-01-13 Member: 25288Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Provoking debate.</div> Think about it, say a guy who makes 1000 bucks a month gets busted for speeding, wham 150 bucks in fines. Now say a guy gets hit with a with the same speeding ticket but he makes a cool million a month.
Isn't the law regressive in that it punishes the poor more than the wealthy? Wouldn't it be better to have a ratio per salary than the current flat fines because if you hit a millionare with a 150 ticket he/she wont even notice, thus the lesson is almost nill, yet if you hit a guy who makes 1000 with a 150 ticket he feels the effect a lot more and thus gets dealt a harsher punishemnt.
Discuss....
Isn't the law regressive in that it punishes the poor more than the wealthy? Wouldn't it be better to have a ratio per salary than the current flat fines because if you hit a millionare with a 150 ticket he/she wont even notice, thus the lesson is almost nill, yet if you hit a guy who makes 1000 with a 150 ticket he feels the effect a lot more and thus gets dealt a harsher punishemnt.
Discuss....
Comments
This really doesn't work well at all if you actually think about it for more than 5 minutes.
(Prays that this doesn't turn into some tax discussion because it sounds damn close to one)
Exactly, there are other penalties besides fines, and note that fines are only for relatively minor infractions. For more serious crimes, it's jailtime, and 10 years in prison is 10 years in prison, whether or not you're rich. So, only fines are really "against the poor", but then again, I'd have to question any law that made me pay $1000 for going 10 over the speed limit (before the insurance costs...)
but what about fines that don't incur additional penalties?
Any / all moving violations and most non-moving will assess points on the violators license.
[edit]And what Depot said[/edit]
but just because there is a point system as well how does that change the fact that the money fine is completely regressive? sure both parties deal with the same points, but thats because the total points one can aquire is the same for everyone, you can hardly say the same thing for money.
to make the situation a little more clear, lets substitute points for money.
say guy a has a max of 30 points and guy b has a max of 10.
if both are speeding and get hit with a 10 point penalty who feels it the most?
Absolutely and totally false. Do you have a clue how many towns and communities depend on traffic fines for a major source of income?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but just because there is a point system as well how does that change the fact that the money fine is completely regressive? sure both parties deal with the same points, but thats because the total points one can aquire is the same for everyone, you can hardly say the same thing for money. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were you to increase the rich violator's fine to fall in line with his income it would be no more of a deterent to prevent him from repeating the offense.
Not to drift off topic, but that is primarily because of the age group you are in. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> That, and you're a gearhead ... ... ... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And in no way was the point false, fines are a deterent, sure they are a major source of income, but they are a deterent to not repeat the infraction first and foremost, the fund raising is an after-effect of the penalty.
Again, this is frequently not the case. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually there is quite a big incentive for the country's wealth to be more evenly distributed: if only a small group had all the disposable income, our capitalist economy would grind to a screeching halt.
And if punishment were the primary reason for traffic fines, there would be no such thing as quotas.
Well, there could always be a minimum fee.
I don't think there is a good answer to this question. On the one hand, the rich aren't deterred by small fines. On the other hand, all people should be treated equally under the law. Also, if rich people paid more, then there would be a larger incentive to catch the rich. Cops would start to ignore the Hyundais and start to catch BMWs for going 1mph over the speed limit.
If we were to scale fines based upon income level, we should make it so that the extra money coming from the rich would not be added to any government budget. Any extra money should go to some sort of charity, so as not to encourage the police to focus their attention on the rich, rather than treating everyone equally. Maybe the extra cash could be put towards a progressive tax cut, to keep with the "redistribution of wealth" ideology.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually there is quite a big incentive for the country's wealth to be more evenly distributed: if only a small group had all the disposable income, our capitalist economy would grind to a screeching halt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is interesting. Since the poor and the middle class spend a large segment of their income, while the rich save a large segment of their income, a progressive tax cut would, in theory, help the economy more than a flat or regressive tax cut (i.e. the Bush tax cut), but that's not particularily germane.
A.
lets say for example that if you are caught speeding 20 over the limit your fine is 2% of your salary.
Everyone pays the same % yet while the richer person pays a higher money amount, to him its really not, as its just 2% out of his salary, its still pocket change to him.
or B
An increasing scale as in poor people pay 2% next braket up pays 4%, richer still pays
8% etc
This method would intale several issues,
why would two people who commit the same crime have to suffer different penalties, this would be discrimination. And on a more socio-economic level this would not stand especially in a capitalist society.
So for example when you are caught for speeding you get a certain amount of "dayfines".
--> Mr.X is driving 85km/h on a 60km/h road. He gets caught and gets 14 dayfines. Mr.X's net income per month is 2000 euros (~2500 USD). Now we calculate how much one dayfine costs to him. This happens by lessening the "basic usage of money per month" (255 euros ~ 330 USD) of his net income per month and then divide it by 60.
Now we have one dayfine. And as Mr.X got 14 dayfines he has a total 407 euros (~525 USD) to pay.
-So the basic pattern to calculate how much one dayfine costs, is:
<u>Monthly net income - 255 euros</u> divided by 60 and multiplied it with the amount of dayfines.
Even if you are poor you get the same amount of dayfines as a rich guy would get from the same crime. The cost of those dayfines are the ones which alter, not the amount of them.
You can get a maximum of 120 dayfines/crime. If you have commited more than one crime you can get maximum of 240 dayfines.
In most cases there is only given less than 10 dayfines.
There are more factors which can still alter your dayfines. For example if you have under-aged kids, how much property you have etc.
The minimun dayfine you can get is 6 euros (~7.75234 USD).
There is no upper limit on how much your dayfine can be.
Because of that, there's every once in a while big tabloids of famous rich people getting huge tickets.
Edit/P.S: Oh and I forgot to mention that they are called "dayfines", because you either pay the fine or sit in prison. Meaning that if you have got 10 dayfines you are going to be 5 full days in prison.
The same could apply to thieves where they lose the right to have their property defended by law so anyone could go up and take anything they wanted from them etc.
The idea is that laws are a social contract, they are agreements between you and everyone else that you will act in a certain way. These contracts are 'signed' automatically once you decide to become a citizen of that country upon which you immediately gain both the limits and advantages of those laws (you can't kill but others will be punished for killing you).
Of course any system designed around those ideas would take a lot of work and I'm sure there would be plenty of situations where it couldn't be applied but what do you think of the idea in principle?
That's cool. I'm good at defending myself - I am surrounded by lethally armed and well-trained bodyguards at all times, bodyguards I pay so well that they are willing to take a bullet for me. And remember, THEY are still protected by the law. Oh sure, you can kill me freely, but if you so much as SCRATCH one of my bodyguards, you're going to jail for it.
Oh - and yes, my bodyguards WILL take that bullet for me, make no mistake about that. I am filthy rich, and about the nastiest **** you'll ever meet. I pay them well, and I promise to keep paying their salary to their families for fifty years if they die "in the line of duty." On the other hand, if one of my bodyguards crosses me or fails to do his duty, he will die a gruesome death - after having watched the same happen to his entire family and as many of his friends as I can get ahold of first. Their loyalty to me is absolute because of the consequences that await them otherwise.
I am now effectively James Bond - I have a license to kill, and you can't touch me. If you park in the spot that I wanted to park in, I walk over and kill you. Oh sure, anyone can kill ME - but they won't be able to. You're proposing a return to the tyranny of the strongest - I am stronger/richer/more powerful than you, so you are my ****. That's a step AWAY from the civilisation that we seek.
lolfighter: the point is that you are relying on an agreement with the bodyguards that you won't kill them and they won't kill you. In the situation I suggested if you had that much power over a bodyguard then he could kill you when you are vulnerable, you couldn't trust any of them. The point of your 'powerful tyrant' is that he can get away with, quite literally, murder. He can do anything he wants without fear. However that <i>is</i> his power, that he can get away with things while people lower down the chain can't or aren't willing to risk it. If there was no risk then any person there could kill that tyrant and survive. Unless you want to fight every person you meet, grow and cook your own food and rely on nobody at all then you can't risk it.
Plus all those people who are killers will suddenly have a way of releasing their urges in a non-illegal way (I don't actually want to say legal there). It would be a modern day equivalent of the gladatorial games and a good way to let off some of our aggression without having to start fights down the pub (what I wouldn't give to go down my local without seeing some fight break out or, even worse, have some chimp in a tracksuit start on me!).
Anyway, this isn't a serious idea and I don't plan to run as the next priminister (at the moment), this is just me playing with ideas here.
And what about laws like no-parking zones? If I break that law, I can either choose to get fined, or to no longer be protected by that law. I fail to see how the latter affects me. So we might as well repeal any and all laws about parking - and now I can park literally in the middle of a crossroads. People still get fined if they run into my car though, because I am still being protected by that law. In other words, I can block any street just because, and nobody can do anything about it.
Not to mention I have high doubts any such law could be passed. (read more at: political campaign sponsors)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CMEast, that could be the premise of a dystopia novel, I think. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That what I thought this sounded like.
PS: Violation is a better word to use than infaction as infaction sounds more like a math term than a legal thing. At least it does to me.
Tell that to the senator who careened into that poor black motorcyclist, killing him, and then got off with 3 months in jail.
Tell that to the senator who careened into that poor black motorcyclist, killing him, and then got off with 3 months in jail. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without knowledge of the case, I can't comment, but there could have been other factors. For instance, that may be the minimum for manslaughter in the state that that case was tried, or maybe the black motorcyclist ran a red light, or even just cut the senator off unexpectantly. I'm quite certain the senator wouldn't have gotten 3 months jailtime if the guy on the motorcycle was just standing there, and the dude rammed him going 60 in his car.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It all began with a mistake, a tragic mistake. It was about 6 p.m. on an October evening in eastern Tennessee. It appears that a man driving home in a mini-van turned left into the path of an oncoming motorcyclist.
The motorcyclist, AMA member Terry Barnard, couldn't avoid the collision and was killed.
The circumstances are all too familiar. In fact, it's the most common type of motorcycle accident. But what happened afterward made this accident anything but common.
First, according to a series of stories in the Knoxville News-Sentinel, witnesses indicated that the driver of the mini-van pulled across the road, stopped, got out of the vehicle, then got back in and drove off.
Second, the man suspected of driving that van was Carl Koella, a veteran Tennessee state senator.
And third, there was an election coming up in two weeks.
There isn't a single reason in the world why items number two and three should have had the slightest impact on item number one. But it appears they might have.
Sen. Koella apparently is a powerful business leader in eastern Tennessee and an important man to the state's Republican party. Going into the November 5 election, the Republicans maintained a narrow one-seat majority in the state Senate, and they were counting on Koella to defeat a tough Democratic challenger and help maintain that advantage.
In fact, at the time the accident occurred, Koella was on his way home after spending the afternoon with Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist, who had traveled to Koella's home district to bolster political support.
According to witnesses, a mini-van made a left turn across the southbound lane of U.S. Route 321 in Blount County south of Knoxville at about 6:07 p.m. When the van started its turn, they said, Barnard's motorcycle was 30 to 40 feet from it and traveling approximately 45 mph in a 50-mph zone. Police reports indicate that Barnard struck the side of the van and caromed off it into a car that was stopped behind the van.
The accident happened at a highway turnoff into a campground. And Sen. Koella happens to live along that same campground road. Witnesses described the vehicle that caused the accident as a powder-blue mini-van bearing a state Senate license plate. They gave police the license number. Koella drives a powder-blue mini-van bearing a state Senate license plate. The numbers matched. And an hour later, Koella called the sheriff's department to say he might have been involved in an accident.
Yet it was nearly four hours before anyone bothered to question the senator about the fatal hit-and-run accident in which he apparently was involved.
According to Tennessee Highway Patrol Captain Larry LaRue, his department received a report of the accident at 6:21 p.m., about 15 minutes after it occurred. Troopers showed up at the scene at 6:37 p.m. and Barnard was life-flighted to the University of Tennessee Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 7:07 p.m.
Officials at the accident scene included two state troopers, Blount County sheriff's deputies, Sheriff Jim Berrong and state District Attorney General Mike Flynn. They received the description of the mini-van from witnesses.
Meanwhile, Koella placed a call to the sheriff's department at about 7 p.m., requesting an officer. He allegedly said that he thought someone behind him on the highway had run over a sign. But he also said he had been told that he hit someone. Again according to News-Sentinel accounts, The officer who took the call said Koella mumbled and sounded confused.
By 8:30 p.m., no officer had arrived at Koella's home, and he called back. Then at 9:30, he allegedly received a phone call from Ben Atchley, the Senate Republican leader in Knoxville. Atchley reportedly told Koella that he had received a phone call from "someone listening to a police scanner." Radio traffic on the scanner indicated that an accident in Blount County had involved a vehicle with state Senate license plates.
"He sounded chipper, just as alert as he could be," Atchley told the newspaper.
While all of this was going on, Grady Lindsey, the owner of the campground where the accident occurred, drove up to the senator's house. Lindsey showed Koella marks on the side of the van that indicated it had been involved in an accident, and he advised Koella to call the sheriff's department again.
According to Lindsey, Koella said he would call them in the morning.
Finally, at about 10 p.m., the police showed up at Koella's house. They charged the senator with leaving the scene of an accident involving a fatality, a class A misdemeanor. He is slated to be arraigned December 19.
They then took Koella to Blount County Hospital, where a blood-alcohol test was administered at 10:50 p.m., almost five hours after the accident.
When the investigating officers were asked by the News-Sentinel if it was standard operating procedure to wait almost four hours to question, and five hours to administer a blood alcohol test to a hit-and-run suspect, one officer replied, "You don't just go up to a man's house and say you're involved in a hit-and-run accident."
In a statement to police, Koella said he didn't realize he had been involved in an accident.
"I heard a thunk and thought I had run over a sign or a rock or something on the road," he said. Koella added that he drove across the road, then got out and checked the driver's side of his van for damage. He said he noticed a traffic accident across the highway, but he got back into his vehicle and drove away.
All of that -- the hit-and-run accident, the motorcyclist killed, the slow response in tracking down and testing the supect -- is ugly enough. But it got even uglier. Why? Because election day was approaching.
The next day, Koella's attorney, Jerry Cunningham, tried to explain the details of the accident to the local press. His account differed substantially from the eyewitness reports.
Cunningham told the press that he was looking for another witness who, "indicated the motorcycle was driving recklessly and passed cars at 70 miles per hour."
"The motorcycle he was driving was not your Gold Wing," Cunningham was quoted as saying. "One trooper told me it was a '**** rocket,' so it was not your touring bike."
A motorcyclist dies. Witnesses say the rider was not speeding. They agree that the van driver was at fault. And he was unquestionably wrong in leaving the scene of the accident.
Could the spin doctors find a way to blame Barnard's death on Barnard himself? After all, he's only a motorcyclist. And there's an election to be won.
"Accidents happen every day among all people," said a Republican campaign worker. "That doesn't make this any less a tragedy, but I don't think it affects his job as a state senator."
"We can expect the voters will return him to office and they would want him to stay in the race," added the state Republican chairman.
For the record, Terry Barnard, 52, was a resident of Huron, Ohio, a navy veteran and a member of his local church. He worked for the same northern Ohio company for 19 years. He is survived by his wife, Joyce, a stepdaughter and stepson. He liked to ride motorcycles and he liked to play golf.
In other words, he was like a lot of us.
For the record, Sen. Carl Koella retained his Senate seat by the narrow margin of 199 votes. The Democratic challenger has asked for a recount. In spite of Koella's victory, the Republicans still lost their majority in the state Senate.
Oh yeah, and a motorcyclist died.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the times when it could be possible, when it might actually beneficial, not when it wouldn't punish anyone.
It would cost the court money, the police officer's time, and would tie up a judge. In fact, the people who would get the more expensive fine are already more likely to contest it in court, so you can bet that every speeding ticket would be contested if a progressive fine were in place.
As it stands now, if I get a ticket for $100 and the cop was smart enough to lower the penalty so no points will go on my license, I will pay the ticket and be on my way. No tied up courts. No wasting the officer's time. No beaurocracy.
Flat fines for the same crime.