the money, follow the flow of money . . .JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. I actually had a registered and insured vehicle at one point without a license. Did it for about a year and never had any issues.
Seriously, if they tried to enforce the no insurance + no license thing religiously in this country our economy would shut down. People can not live without their cars.burnzz wrote:
the money, follow the flow of money . . .JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. I actually had a registered and insured vehicle at one point without a license. Did it for about a year and never had any issues.
i drive 27 miles one way to work. it's why i still own a little four banger. distances out West here are ridiculous, public transit could not hope to covwer them . . .
weird. How can you be ANTI-public transport? Reduce pollution. let everyone be able to get places? Horrible socialist ideas! yuck!JohnG@lt wrote:
. And no, I'm not advocating more public transportation because it would cost much much more than it would be worth to implement.
ruisleipa wrote:
weird. How can you be ANTI-public transport? Reduce pollution. let everyone be able to get places? Horrible socialist ideas! yuck!JohnG@lt wrote:
. And no, I'm not advocating more public transportation because it would cost much much more than it would be worth to implement.
NO TRAINS. NO BUSES. NO TRAMS. FREEEEDOM!
like I said, it's weird.
Because we don't have the population density to support it outside of localized metropolitan areas. Our government has been subsidizing (at a loss) the only inter-city passenger rail service in the country for a few decades now. It's just not viable.ruisleipa wrote:
weird. How can you be ANTI-public transport? Reduce pollution. let everyone be able to get places? Horrible socialist ideas! yuck!JohnG@lt wrote:
. And no, I'm not advocating more public transportation because it would cost much much more than it would be worth to implement.
NO TRAINS. NO BUSES. NO TRAMS. FREEEEDOM!
like I said, it's weird.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-11 11:09:54)
You're not thinking logically on this one.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Income has nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment. If every person is treated equally, they pay the exact same absolute amount for the same offense.
Should jailtime be doled out in percentages of projected life left? After all time is worth less to a young person, they have more of it left...12 months is a lot more of a deterrent for a 40 year old than a 25 year old right?
brilliant replyJohnG@lt wrote:
You're not thinking logically on this one.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Income has nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment. If every person is treated equally, they pay the exact same absolute amount for the same offense.
Should jailtime be doled out in percentages of projected life left? After all time is worth less to a young person, they have more of it left...12 months is a lot more of a deterrent for a 40 year old than a 25 year old right?
I already gave my two cents on it. The only foreseeable drawback is that rich people would probably be targeted more by cops to fill municipal coffers. Hitting people with fines commensurate with their income is entirely logical.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
brilliant replyJohnG@lt wrote:
You're not thinking logically on this one.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Income has nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment. If every person is treated equally, they pay the exact same absolute amount for the same offense.
Should jailtime be doled out in percentages of projected life left? After all time is worth less to a young person, they have more of it left...12 months is a lot more of a deterrent for a 40 year old than a 25 year old right?
Logical is not moral.JohnG@lt wrote:
I already gave my two cents on it. The only foreseeable drawback is that rich people would probably be targeted more by cops to fill municipal coffers. Hitting people with fines commensurate with their income is entirely logical.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
brilliant replyJohnG@lt wrote:
You're not thinking logically on this one.
Moral? Really?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Logical is not moral.JohnG@lt wrote:
I already gave my two cents on it. The only foreseeable drawback is that rich people would probably be targeted more by cops to fill municipal coffers. Hitting people with fines commensurate with their income is entirely logical.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
brilliant reply
If the fines are levied in proportion to income then they wouldn't be treating the crimes differently. With a flat fee the poor person is punished far more than the wealthy person for the same crime.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow thanks for explaining that to me like I'm either five years old or blinded into submission by numbers with decimal points in them.
It's not right to charge people differing amounts for the same offense, because they didn't do anything differently. Justice is blind. Justice doesn't know how much each person makes, as Lady Justice doesn't know the race color or creed of the man. Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-11 11:39:03)
That's a great ideology to strive for but it's not reality. 'Lady Justice' does reward the people who can afford better lawyers. 'Lady Justice' is racist, discriminatory, and bigoted. That's because 'Lady Justice' is comprised of human beings, not an ideology.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow thanks for explaining that to me like I'm either five years old or blinded into submission by numbers with decimal points in them.
It's not right to charge people differing amounts for the same offense, because they didn't do anything differently. Justice is blind. Justice doesn't know how much each person makes, as Lady Justice doesn't know the race color or creed of the man. Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
which bit did you not understand earlier. It IS treating people equally if they pay the same amount as a percentage of their earnings. As galt has already shown. Dammit, I'm agreeing with galt...but weirder things have happened.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Income has nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment. If every person is treated equally, they pay the exact same absolute amount for the same offense.
Should jailtime be doled out in percentages of projected life left? After all time is worth less to a young person, they have more of it left...12 months is a lot more of a deterrent for a 40 year old than a 25 year old right?
THEY ARE NOT TREATING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY THEY ARE TREATING THEM THE SAME.Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
Jail would be a good and equitable idea. One problem there would be the massive expansion required in the jail/prison system and the attendant cost. I personally think the fine administered is excessive but do believe in a percentage based fine as a practical means of deterring illegal behaviour. When equal protection means the ability of the vastly monied to easily and trivially buy there way out of the law then that system of law has failed.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Equal protection under the law. Fining one person one amount and another a different amount for the exact same crime is not equal protection under the law.CameronPoe wrote:
Just read it. How does it apply here? And how does it apply in the context of making people for whom a €50 fine constitutes less than a days interest accrual not feel free to speed as merrily as their heart desires? Practicality.
You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.
So fuck it eh?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's a great ideology to strive for but it's not reality.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow thanks for explaining that to me like I'm either five years old or blinded into submission by numbers with decimal points in them.
It's not right to charge people differing amounts for the same offense, because they didn't do anything differently. Justice is blind. Justice doesn't know how much each person makes, as Lady Justice doesn't know the race color or creed of the man. Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
Oh yes make the argument in the name of the poor person getting shafted. As if the reason why everyone agrees with it isn't to charge people with money more, it's to charge poor people less.JohnG@lt wrote:
If the fines are levied in proportion to income then they wouldn't be treating the crimes differently. With a flat fee the poor person is punished far more than the wealthy person for the same crime.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Wow thanks for explaining that to me like I'm either five years old or blinded into submission by numbers with decimal points in them.
It's not right to charge people differing amounts for the same offense, because they didn't do anything differently. Justice is blind. Justice doesn't know how much each person makes, as Lady Justice doesn't know the race color or creed of the man. Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
If the penalty is a static % then it is fair to everyone. The argument you're making is akin to those who say a progressive tax system is fair.
I would rather work on expanding the jails or getting some of the more violent out of the system than raising the bar as to who gets in.CameronPoe wrote:
Jail would be a good and equitable idea. One problem there would be the massive expansion required in the jail/prison system and the attendant cost. I personally think the fine administered is excessive but do believe in a percentage based fine as a practical means of deterring illegal behaviour. When equal protection means the ability of the vastly monied to easily and trivially buy there way out of the law then that system of law has failed.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Equal protection under the law. Fining one person one amount and another a different amount for the exact same crime is not equal protection under the law.CameronPoe wrote:
Just read it. How does it apply here? And how does it apply in the context of making people for whom a €50 fine constitutes less than a days interest accrual not feel free to speed as merrily as their heart desires? Practicality.
You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.
Sure we don't know how long people have left, but there can be some fair guesses yeah? As to the length of the natural life, a 25 year old has a lot more time left than a 40 year old. That misses the point anyways. The calculation of the terms might not be exact, but you have the same problem in calculating someone's net worth (or whatever they use) to figure out the fine too. It's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be close. So what exactly is wrong with the heart of the issue?ruisleipa wrote:
which bit did you not understand earlier. It IS treating people equally if they pay the same amount as a percentage of their earnings. As galt has already shown. Dammit, I'm agreeing with galt...but weirder things have happened.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Income has nothing to do with the crime, and should have nothing to do with the punishment. If every person is treated equally, they pay the exact same absolute amount for the same offense.
Should jailtime be doled out in percentages of projected life left? After all time is worth less to a young person, they have more of it left...12 months is a lot more of a deterrent for a 40 year old than a 25 year old right?
Your example of jail time is wrong. mainly but not only because we don't know how long people have left to live, do we?
I doubt there are ANY crimes or misdemeanours that ALWAYS result in the same sentence. Even murder trials and sentences take into account different factors don't they, which is why one person who kills someone might get a year, and someone esle might get 20.THEY ARE NOT TREATING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY THEY ARE TREATING THEM THE SAME.Treating one person different from another because of what they do or have done outside the relevancy of the crime is wrong.
Would you like me to say it again in another language or something cos you seem to have trouble with English?
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Their ability to pay that amount is independent - nothing stops them from having the same amount of money as the right person. That is where the equality is and that is where it is important, not in the equality of the end result.
You talked earlier about deterrence. It's not a deterrent for a rich bloke to pay 50 bucks speeding fine. 5000 might make him think twice. Fair? I think so.When equal protection means the ability of the vastly monied to easily and trivially buy there way out of the law then that system of law has failed.
I am hardly a champion of the poor. In fact most of my arguments on this forum are quite the opposite.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh yes make the argument in the name of the poor person getting shafted. As if the reason why everyone agrees with it isn't to charge people with money more, it's to charge poor people less.
They are charged the exact same dollar amount. Their slip reads the same as every other persons. Some fine gentlemen such as myself have a fair, boyish complexion and supple bodies that would not fair well in jail. Does that mean I should serve less time, because my ability to survive in jail is less than a hardened criminal?
Their ability to pay that amount is independent - nothing stops them from having the same amount of money as the right person. That is where the equality is and that is where it is important, not in the equality of the end result.
In economics how much you make is practically relevant. In justice it is not.
Depends on where you live I guess. In Ohio if a cop runs the tags and the person the car is registered to (which more often than not is the driver) has a suspended license it will show up and they will be pulled over. And they will randomly run the tags of people they are following out of boredom, and to check for warrants and such.JohnG@lt wrote:
They're not though. If a guy is driving without a license or insurance and never drives erratically or speeds he won't be pulled over. He could, in reality, go his entire life without being caught without a license or insurance. The speeder will be caught because he's obviously breaking the law.
Last edited by jaymz9350 (2010-01-11 11:59:06)
Count me in aswell. I agree now with lowing. Europe's covered in snow, so I guess hell has in fact frozen over.JohnG@lt wrote:
Seriously, myself, lowing, Ken and ruislepa (among others) all agree on a topic for once. That doesn't happen. Ever.
People who don't agree on social issues agreeing on a social issue...I smell inconsistency. Check your premises young padawan.JohnG@lt wrote:
Seriously, myself, lowing, Ken and ruislepa (among others) all agree on a topic for once. That doesn't happen. Ever.
Did I say that? Where did I say that?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am hardly a champion of the poor. In fact most of my arguments on this forum are quite the opposite.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh yes make the argument in the name of the poor person getting shafted. As if the reason why everyone agrees with it isn't to charge people with money more, it's to charge poor people less.
They are charged the exact same dollar amount. Their slip reads the same as every other persons. Some fine gentlemen such as myself have a fair, boyish complexion and supple bodies that would not fair well in jail. Does that mean I should serve less time, because my ability to survive in jail is less than a hardened criminal?
Their ability to pay that amount is independent - nothing stops them from having the same amount of money as the right person. That is where the equality is and that is where it is important, not in the equality of the end result.
In economics how much you make is practically relevant. In justice it is not.
However, economic success and a failure to obey the laws are two entirely different things. Making an argument that poor people should work harder and stop being poor in order to pay their fines more easily is completely illogical coming from someone who champions 'blind justice'. It means you happen to like the status quo where a rich person can treat any non-capital crime as a scofflaw with a quick flick of the checkbook.
I guess we must agree to disagree. I haven't read many of the posts in this thread but you seem to treat money as some untouchable holy grail, as if (correct me if I'm wrong) the law is punishing someone for 'being successful'. That is not the case, it is administering a punishment that the criminal will feel punished by, which is obviously not a fixed thing applicable to all (except in the case of jail). I think the jail idea is impractical and wasteful. It is far simpler, cheaper and straightforward to administer graded fines.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would rather work on expanding the jails or getting some of the more violent out of the system than raising the bar as to who gets in.
The last sentence I agree with completely. Both in the examination and the administration of the law. It's just that the solution is not charge them more money.
Guess I need to read the whole topic before disagreeing with the lot of youDonFck wrote:
Count me in aswell. I agree now with lowing. Europe's covered in snow, so I guess hell has in fact frozen over.JohnG@lt wrote:
Seriously, myself, lowing, Ken and ruislepa (among others) all agree on a topic for once. That doesn't happen. Ever.