@kevcvs57 saidI was going to mention means testing in reply to Zahlanzi, but since you mentioned it,i will reply here. If there is to be a sliding scale of fines, then it matters not only how much the offender earns or owns. Some are income rich but asset poor, others are asset rich and income poor, still others have heavy obligations and little actually disposable money. A heavy fine imposed on one who is asset rich but income poor might compel him to sell off a house to pay the fine, which is in effect dispossession or even disinheritance to the next generation (who have committed no crime). Hardly justified, in my view. But once you admit that means testing is needed to ensure fairness of sliding scale fines, you enter a legal quagmire of scarcely resolvale complications. What if someone of Bezos’s caliber is hit with a billion dollar fine and that billion was already earmarked for Doctors without Borders, who will now go without because the guy does not happen to have a second billion just lying around liquid?
No prison sentences should not be based in someone’s income but I think most grown ups realise that the lower your income the greater your chances of going to prison for a comparable crime and you will, on average, be there longer too.
But the thread title is about fines. If any given fine us meant to be a combination of punishment and deterrent then they must be means tested in order to be either.
@moonbus saidGood Stuff, Moonbus. You might enjoy some sample Legal Ethics questions, you write like you are answering one. Of course it is all multiple choice these days, but in days of yore it was essay.
I was going to mention means testing in reply to Zahlanzi, but since you mentioned it,i will reply here. If there is to be a sliding scale of fines, then it matters not only how much the offender earns or owns. Some are income rich but asset poor, others are asset rich and income poor, still others have heavy obligations and little actually disposable money. A heavy fine impo ...[text shortened]... ll now go without because the guy does not happen to have a second billion just lying around liquid?
Google 'sample legal ethics questions'
@moonbus saidMaking the sliding scale a guideline subject to a judge's discretion in light of the offender's individual circumstances would alleviate such concerns.
I was going to mention means testing in reply to Zahlanzi, but since you mentioned it,i will reply here. If there is to be a sliding scale of fines, then it matters not only how much the offender earns or owns. Some are income rich but asset poor, others are asset rich and income poor, still others have heavy obligations and little actually disposable money. A heavy fine impo ...[text shortened]... ll now go without because the guy does not happen to have a second billion just lying around liquid?
1 edit
@moonbus saidWell we’ve had means testing for benefits in the UK since the parish system of welfare going back hundreds of years. Obviously certain assets would be discounted and the family home would one such asset as would the agar oven. It really isn’t difficult to band these fines, you do not need to have access to the minutiae of a persons income. If your earning 300,000 per annum you pay 10 times more than someone earning 30,000 per annum for example.
I was going to mention means testing in reply to Zahlanzi, but since you mentioned it,i will reply here. If there is to be a sliding scale of fines, then it matters not only how much the offender earns or owns. Some are income rich but asset poor, others are asset rich and income poor, still others have heavy obligations and little actually disposable money. A heavy fine impo ...[text shortened]... ll now go without because the guy does not happen to have a second billion just lying around liquid?
So what purpose do you believe these fines serve if not as a punishment and or a deterrent?
How do you propose that we punish / deter the super rich from violating speed limits and the like, or are these things only little people should have to worry about?
@shallow-blue saidYou are wrong
Nah, they become rich either by being indifferent to their parents dying and leaving them all the dosh (Trump), or by being indifferent to other people's suffering (Zuckerberg).
@kevcvs57 saidThis.
I agree. I’ve always thought it’s ridiculous that the numeric value of a punishment fine is the same for a billionaire as it is for a pauper.
It should b be levied as a % of the transgressors anual income. If it’s meant to be a punishment then of course the impact on the punished should be equal.
@kevcvs57 saidCan you square this thought with buying a hamburger? I'm being serious. We are discussing logic, not hamburgers or fines per se.
I agree. I’ve always thought it’s ridiculous that the numeric value of a punishment fine is the same for a billionaire as it is for a pauper.
It should b be levied as a % of the transgressors anual income. If it’s meant to be a punishment then of course the impact on the punished should be equal.
If we follow your logic, then Bezos should pay $1000 or whatever for a hamburger.
But it goes deeper than that.......What other areas of society should set up such programs? Pay more for college tuition? For a car?
@contenchess saidWhy say that you can't mix them? I am working with a lib here, he is quite casual to say that Bezos should pay more in fines. Are you gonna allow him to be a bit selective? Why just fines? Why not something else? How about how much Bezos pays for a gallon of gas, or how many quarters he puts in the Laundromat machines?
You can't mix fines and regular purchases 🙄
You sound like a liberal who keeps moving the goal posts.
Why just fines?
@AverageJoe1
Breaking the law should have an impact on the transgressor.
So giving a poor person the same fine as a billionaire or any rich person is a mockery of the punishment.
How come when a poor person attacks a rich or famous person they get more time in jail than if they attacked a regular poor person?
@contenchess saidThis is where we conservatives tell liberals that life is not perfect. Life is not the Utopia that they want it to be. Everything provided for them, flowers everywhere, cool springs at the park where they throw frisbees, all being exactly equal. Equality, equity, you know their drill.
@AverageJoe1
Breaking the law should have an impact on the transgressor.
So giving a poor person the same fine as a billionaire or any rich person is a mockery of the punishment.
How come when a poor person attacks a rich or famous person they get more time in jail than if they attacked a regular poor person?
So, yes, your point is well taken about non-equal treatment, having attacked the rich guy. PLEASE tell us what should be done about it. People with money get the best lawyers, maybe?. What to do about it? What restrictions do libs recommend the govt put on such things!?? I am not being curt, I am pointing out that nothing is perfect. One way to resolve it is for those criminals to not commit crime, when the realize they will get the short end of the stick. They are asking for it.