The rich get....socked

So, should jail terms be longer for younger offenders, too? Actuarially speaking, they have more life left to live and should be punished proportionally, right?

Jamesc2123 wrote: It's not more punishment for the rich just because they're rich, it's more punishment to get them to care about the crime (speeding is a crime, get over it). Fining crimes as a percentage of income makes everyone feel the hurt from an offense the same, keeping people from feeling free to commit crimes if they can afford the punishment. Celica, not to single you out, but if you were layed with a $600 fine for going 85 in a 50, and had to scramble and scratch together the money, and have to make some major sacrifices, it wouldn't make you think twice before going that fast again?

Oh absolutely. But the same would apply if i got the standard $150 fine the first time, and then got my liscence suspended the second time. Probably more so with the suspension. Or hell, if i got one ticket, and was told that the next in a blah blah blah period would get me suspended. I sure as hell wouldn't be speeding anytime soon.

The only point that i was making is that if they want to deter everyone from speeding, it's kindof hard to argue with a suspension. That hurts everyone.

As an aside, i've had my run ins with the law. A search around here will reveal that i've been arrested in the last year and a half and taken down to the nice grey drag hotel. This was due to a mistake on THEIR PART. So yes, i'm a little bitter about stuff like this.

The fact of the matter is that i've been issued and paid multiple tickets in my life. I can 100% honestly say that only ONE of them was just and correct. I paid them all, simply because it was easier to just pay the $150 than go through the bullE36 M3. There is no way i, nor would i imagine a lot of people would tolerate anything of the sort if tickets were being based on income. It's one thing for me to pay $600 over 4 tickets, knowing that 3 of them were unwarranted.

It's quite another to pay $2400 just for them to go away.

billy3esq wrote: So, should jail terms be longer for younger offenders, too? Actuarially speaking, they have more life left to live and should be punished proportionally, right?

I believe you and i are on the same page, but i'll answer anyways.

No.

Jail time sucks. No matter how long you have left to live.

Socialism makes sense philosophically In your Ferrari analogy, the guy who would be punished is the Ferrari employee laid off because sales were down

I really agree with you on that one. Suspensions, community service, whatever are probably a much better way to deter crime than fines. Do you think, though, that tough fines have no place at all in our penal system? (I actually don't have an answer to that one, so I'm actually interested in hearing people's opinions)

Jamesc2123 wrote: I really agree with you on that one. Suspensions, community service, whatever are probably a much better way to deter crime than fines. Do you think, though, that tough fines have no place at all in our penal system? (I actually don't have an answer to that one, so I'm actually interested in hearing people's opinions)

They have a place, yes... but not as a deterrent. The idea of fines for crimes besides stuff like illegal nuclear waste dumping and the such doesn't really make sense to me from a moral standpoint.

"Oh, yeah. What you did was bad, but for the reasonable price of $XXXX it'll ALL GO AWAY!!!!! LIMITED TIME OFFER!!"

Seriously?

I have a hard time believing that anyone who is a citizen if the USA seriously thinks that a punishment should be based on your income. Other than envy I can see no other motivation for thinking that way except that you are a fan of Karl Marx.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Fines are how the system helps pay for itself. This eases the burden of the taxpayer and is, in itself, a good thing. Pay to play if you will. The problem arises when the generation of revenue becomes the focus ( speed tax, sin tax on booze and tobacco, etc.)

81gtv6 wrote: Socialism? How is equal treatment under the law socialist? It is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Like has been said earlier in this thread, a $200 speeding ticket to a person how makes $200,000 a year is no where near as difficult to pay as it is for someone who makes $20,000 a year. In the US Army when you go and stay in the base "hotel" the rate you pay is based on your rank, I have not heard anyone call the military "socialist".

There's socialism in the US military!!! We're all going die!

I guess if you did something that cost other people money, than you should be expected to pay that much and more back. Illegally dump something hazardous, pay for the cost of cleanup. Crash a car into a guardrail speeding, pay to replace the guardrail. But you are right though, huge fines just because they can, with no other punishment, probably won't do much to deter. Even with a 6 figure fine, this superrich driver will still speed wherever he goes, just maybe not in Switzerland.

4eyes wrote: Socialism makes sense philosophically In your Ferrari analogy, the guy who would be punished is the Ferrari employee laid off because sales were down

And that’s what the Italians get for siding with Hitler.

How about a good old fashioned Singapore style caning? One whack for each MPH over the speed limit. Same punishment for rich and poor.

You can't drive if you can't sit down.

Link to an AP article: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/europe/view/20100110europe_slapping_rich_with_massive_traffic_fines/srvc=news&position=recent_bullet

Turns out that the Swiss electorate voted in the law allowing penalties determined by income.

Another tidbit in the article describes a Top Gear-inspired episode. A group of Hong Kong businessmen rented exotic cars and proceeded to terrorize local roads at demon high speeds. So, the REAL culprits are Clarkson, Hammond and May.

Off With Their Heads! or at least their bank accounts.

I use the philosophy of pay to play; I just don't pay the fines as I would rather pay lawyers. You don't even have to show up to court, the lawyer takes care of that for you. I s'pose there is a fine and court costs there, but I just stroke one check. Pay a lawyer too much, and the incentive to keep it in check becomes stronger. Life cycle cost (with insurance rates, etc.), paying the lawyer with a reduction to non-moving violation is usually cheaper than just paying the fine.

So what is the disincentive here, certainly we have differently levels of treatment based on ability to pay?

kcmoken wrote: I use the philosophy of pay to play; I just don't pay the fines as I would rather pay lawyers. You don't even have to show up to court, the lawyer takes care of that for you. I s'pose there is a fine and court costs there, but I just stroke one check. Pay a lawyer too much, and the incentive to keep it in check becomes stronger. Life cycle cost (with insurance rates, etc.), paying the lawyer with a reduction to non-moving violation is usually cheaper than just paying the fine. So what is the disincentive here, certainly we have differently levels of treatment based on ability to pay?

The Paris Hilton philosophy of life. I'm rich so I should be able to do anything I want. Let the lawyers take care of the details.

kcmoken wrote: I use the philosophy of pay to play; I just don't pay the fines as I would rather pay lawyers.

God bless you!!!

billy3esq wrote:

kcmoken wrote: I use the philosophy of pay to play; I just don't pay the fines as I would rather pay lawyers.

God bless you!!!

Yep, saw that one coming.