Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2010-01-11 12:01:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5751|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.
I am hardly a champion of the poor. In fact most of my arguments on this forum are quite the opposite.

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.
Did I say that? Where did I say that?

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.

So you also must have missed the bit about jail time. Community service was a pretty good suggestion too, I think by Dilbert.
By stating that the current laws with one size fits all fines is a better system than one that uses a proportion of income instead.

As for jail time, if they're given the same jail sentence then guess what? The rich person loses far more in income during their time in jail than the poor person. Same proportion but the number is much higher. Now extend that to fines...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-11 12:02:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6974|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.
What about the idea of it being easier to lose your license for these sort of offences and having heavy penalties, rigourously imposed, for driving without a license?

It's even, it's fair, it's a deterent. It keeps the worst drivers off the road (in theory and at least to some extent in practice).
2010-01-11 12:02:56
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

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.
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.
It's got nothing to do with protecting the rich, it's got to do with equality. That combined with the fact that there are much better deterrents than just taking more money...yeah it's going to take more work, but I'm not sure any amount of work is not worth the reward of a just civil peace.
2010-01-11 12:04:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6948

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's got nothing to do with protecting the rich, it's got to do with equality. That combined with the fact that there are much better deterrents than just taking more money...yeah it's going to take more work, but I'm not sure any amount of work is not worth the reward of a just civil peace.
The value of money is relative not absolute. It's value depends on who possesses it. I don't and will never buy your 'same monetary penalty for the same crime' line, it doesn't wash with me.
2010-01-11 12:04:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.
What about the idea of it being easier to lose your license for these sort of offences and having heavy penalties, rigourously imposed, for driving without a license?

It's even, it's fair, it's a deterent. It keeps the worst drivers off the road (in theory and at least to some extent in practice).
Where's that checkmark...
2010-01-11 12:05:04
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6974|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's got nothing to do with protecting the rich, it's got to do with equality. That combined with the fact that there are much better deterrents than just taking more money...yeah it's going to take more work, but I'm not sure any amount of work is not worth the reward of a just civil peace.
The value of money is relative not absolute. It's value depends on who possesses it. I don't and will never buy your 'same monetary penalty for the same crime' line, it doesn't wash with me.
Personally I don't buy the whole monetary penalty for criminal offences thing....
2010-01-11 12:05:37
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6615|teh FIN-land

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.
yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!

ho hum. I still stand by our fine Finnish system of adjusted speeding fines, and think they'd also be reasonable if put in place for many other misdemeanours punishable by fines.

p.s. LOL at Harmor bailing from this one

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-11 12:07:15)

2010-01-11 12:07:04
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6948

Bertster7 wrote:

Personally I don't buy the whole monetary penalty for criminal offences thing....
I think it's fine for petty offences. There are a whole string of crimes that do not warrant jail time but do warrant reprimand. Monetary penalties do sting.
2010-01-11 12:08:52
Karbin
Member
+42|6688
Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act

Increases fines for street racers and aggressive drivers, including those who drive 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, to $10,000 and allows police to immediately suspend the driver’s licence and impound the vehicle for seven days.

Police can issue an immediate seven-day driver’s licence suspension and seven-day vehicle impoundment for street racing, participating in a driving contest or stunt driving.

Courts can impose a driver licence suspension of up to 10 years for a second conviction, if the second conviction occurs within 10 years of the first.  For a first conviction, the maximum licence suspension period remains at 2 years.

The definition of a “driving stunt” includes driving a motor vehicle at 50 km/h or more above the posted speed limit.

Note:

This law is under a court challenge. Grounds for the challenge, road side impound and confiscation of vehicle. Seizing propriety with out trial.

Just to take it over the top:
A 60+ grandmother was charged under this law in the act of passing a slow moving dump truck. As far as I know, it's still before the courts.
2010-01-11 12:09:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


I am hardly a champion of the poor. In fact most of my arguments on this forum are quite the opposite.

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.
Did I say that? Where did I say that?

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.

So you also must have missed the bit about jail time. Community service was a pretty good suggestion too, I think by Dilbert.
By stating that the current laws with one size fits all fines is a better system than one that uses a proportion of income instead.

As for jail time, if they're given the same jail sentence then guess what? The rich person loses far more in income during their time in jail than the poor person. Same proportion but the number is much higher. Now extend that to fines...
But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
2010-01-11 12:10:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6974|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Personally I don't buy the whole monetary penalty for criminal offences thing....
I think it's fine for petty offences. There are a whole string of crimes that do not warrant jail time but do warrant reprimand. Monetary penalties do sting.
Not as much as community service.

Would you rather have a £50 fine or a days community service? I know I'd take the fine.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-11 12:11:14)

2010-01-11 12:11:45
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's got nothing to do with protecting the rich, it's got to do with equality. That combined with the fact that there are much better deterrents than just taking more money...yeah it's going to take more work, but I'm not sure any amount of work is not worth the reward of a just civil peace.
The value of money is relative not absolute. It's value depends on who possesses it. I don't and will never buy your 'same monetary penalty for the same crime' line, it doesn't wash with me.
Marginal benefit does not hold when the money transfers hands. $19.99 for a George Foreman Grill is always $19.99 in transit, even if its value may have been different to its various owners at different points in the transaction.

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.
yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!

ho hum. I still stand by our fine Finnish system of adjusted speeding fines, and think they'd also be reasonable if put in place for many other misdemeanours punishable by fines.

p.s. LOL at Harmor bailing from this one
You also seem to have missed the bit about jail time or community service.
2010-01-11 12:13:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5751|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.

So you also must have missed the bit about jail time. Community service was a pretty good suggestion too, I think by Dilbert.
By stating that the current laws with one size fits all fines is a better system than one that uses a proportion of income instead.

As for jail time, if they're given the same jail sentence then guess what? The rich person loses far more in income during their time in jail than the poor person. Same proportion but the number is much higher. Now extend that to fines...
But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-11 12:16:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-11 12:13:58
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6948

Bertster7 wrote:

Not as much as community service.

Would you rather have a £50 fine or a days community service? I know I'd take the fine.
Yeah community service for all petty offences is a decent idea. It would still involve a large administrative cost though and I'm not sure there would be enough 'service' to go around.
2010-01-11 12:17:03
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7025|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

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.
That's a great ideology to strive for but it's not reality.
So fuck it eh?

-I read your edit but the response is the same.
No, so change the system, don't regurgitate the ideology as if it is practiced that way.  If the system worked according to the ideology you expounded then maybe we could get somewhere.  It doesn't.
2010-01-11 12:19:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6974|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Not as much as community service.

Would you rather have a £50 fine or a days community service? I know I'd take the fine.
Yeah community service for all petty offences is a decent idea. It would still involve a large administrative cost though and I'm not sure there would be enough 'service' to go around.
I'm sure there would be plenty of service to go round. Properly managed it could potentially be done quite efficiently, getting useful stuff done that the local council would have to have spent money on anyway.

I certainly think it's a greater deterent than a fine and that's the main point.
2010-01-11 13:08:26
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|7048

Disclaimer: I did not read through all 4 pages of this first

IIRC, in California, if you get a speeding ticket, you get a "point" on your license. You can attend traffic school to remove said point. However, you can only attend traffic school to remove the point once every 18 months. If you get 3 points, your license is revoked.

I'm all for equal treatment under the law. If the rich folk can easily afford the speeding tickets, that's fine. But they'll be racking up the points fairly quickly and will soon have their license revoked and be off the streets. Problem solved.
2010-01-11 13:21:43
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

By stating that the current laws with one size fits all fines is a better system than one that uses a proportion of income instead.

As for jail time, if they're given the same jail sentence then guess what? The rich person loses far more in income during their time in jail than the poor person. Same proportion but the number is much higher. Now extend that to fines...
But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


That's a great ideology to strive for but it's not reality.
So fuck it eh?

-I read your edit but the response is the same.
No, so change the system, don't regurgitate the ideology as if it is practiced that way.  If the system worked according to the ideology you expounded then maybe we could get somewhere.  It doesn't.
I am saying change the system. That's the point. I'm not saying our system is perfect and this is one outlier.
2010-01-11 13:24:15
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|7025|Finland

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.
Doing jailtime and monetary punishments can't really be compared. A number of days/months/years is the same to everyone, but a predetermined sum of money is a shitload for many and peanuts for some.

This is why we have progressive taxation also. Which reminds me, I need to go up my tax percentage.
I need around tree fiddy.
2010-01-11 13:25:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5751|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.
But it's NOT the same fine for everyone. Yes, the number is the same but that number has different implications for people at differing income levels. The proportion of the fine to income, and therefore the severity of the punishment, is vastly different. With jail time or community service the proportion is identical. With a fine, under the current system, the punishments are not identical at all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-11 13:26:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7044|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


But I didn't say the poor should "stop being poor" to pay for their fines. To even have a fine at all they have to have done something wrong.

Now you're arguing for me...

By your argument in this situation the penalties differ, and therefore you imply that the inequality makes this situation undesirable. By my argument, the penalties are equal because the time on the slips is the same amount.

Unless you're implying that rich people should have shorter jail times, you fucked up.
Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.
I will agree with this only if this transcends to all aspects of crime and punishment. When there is no buying and selling of justice all things shall be equal. Until then, If the rich want to buy expensive justice, they can buy expensive speeding tickets as well.
2010-01-11 13:38:27
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7100|67.222.138.85

DonFck wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.
Doing jailtime and monetary punishments can't really be compared. A number of days/months/years is the same to everyone, but a predetermined sum of money is a shitload for many and peanuts for some.

This is why we have progressive taxation also. Which reminds me, I need to go up my tax percentage.
Marginal benefit does not hold when the money transfers hands. $19.99 for a George Foreman Grill is always $19.99 in transit, even if its value may have been different to its various owners at different points in the transaction.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not implying that in the slightest. By your logic, with a fixed fine, the rich person would be in jail for a shorter amount of time so as to punish them equally fiscally. $200 fine translated into jail time would be two days for your average poor person, $200 for a lawyer charged with the same crime would equate to about an hour in jail. That's why your argument about a flat fine doesn't hold water.

If they served the same jail sentence, it would be in proportion. If they were levied a fine at 1%, it would be in proportion.
I never said equal fiscal punishment. I said equal punishment. That means if the punishment is a fine, it's the same fine for everyone. If it's jail time, it's the same jail time for everyone.
But it's NOT the same fine for everyone. Yes, the number is the same but that number has different implications for people at differing income levels. The proportion of the fine to income, and therefore the severity of the punishment, is vastly different. With jail time or community service the proportion is identical. With a fine, under the current system, the punishments are not identical at all.
type             crime           punishment             result

proportional  equal           unequal                  equal

absolute       equal           equal                      unequal

Let's use an accepted definition of punishment hrmmm? Because paying a $200 fine is the punishment, not lacking the ability to go buy $200 in candy bars.
2010-01-11 13:53:27
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6948

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Marginal benefit does not hold when the money transfers hands. $19.99 for a George Foreman Grill is always $19.99 in transit, even if its value may have been different to its various owners at different points in the transaction.
$19.99 to someone who can't afford their rent is a burden, $19.99 to a multi-millionaire is a fine they would probably laugh at. You can't equate it to the commodities, you can only equate it to the suffering the fine imposes on the criminal.
2010-01-11 14:04:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5751|London, England

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Marginal benefit does not hold when the money transfers hands. $19.99 for a George Foreman Grill is always $19.99 in transit, even if its value may have been different to its various owners at different points in the transaction.
$19.99 to someone who can't afford their rent is a burden, $19.99 to a multi-millionaire is a fine they would probably laugh at. You can't equate it to the commodities, you can only equate it to the suffering the fine imposes on the criminal.
Exactly.

Person A makes $36,500 a year.
Person B makes $365,000 a year.

They both spend 3 nights in jail for the same crime.

Person A loses $300 in wages.
Person B loses $3000 in wages.

Somehow this is fair but levying a fine of $300 at Person A and $3000 at Person B for the same crime is somehow unfair. I'm confused.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-11 14:08:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6499|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Person A makes $36,500 a year.
Person B makes $365,000 a year.

They both spend 3 nights in jail for the same crime.

Person A loses $300 in wages.
Person B loses $3000 in wages.

Somehow this is fair but levying a fine of $300 at Person A and $3000 at Person B for the same crime is somehow unfair. I'm confused.
There you have it.

Socialist fines do fly in the face of the idea that the more money you have the higher above the law you are, hence why all the right-wingers here are wailing so loudly.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard