Court Fines based upon income & assets

[Goober]

Court Fines based upon income & assets

Some European countries have been doing this very same thing for a few years or longer.


I mostly read of this when a wealthy fellow has been fined a few hundred thousand dollars because of excessive speeding.

Should we not implement income/asset based fines for such offences as speeding, Due Care & Attention and in particular Impaired driving
An example being Impaired Driving - Eastern Canada has on average higher fines and more often then not incarceration as well. Ontario and West the numbers drop. Going from memory on an old article I read a bit ago so it is not a point of contention

Example - Persons income 50 k - fined 2 K for Impaired - 4 % of gross income


Example - Persons income 150 k - fined 2 K for Impaired - Approx 1.40 % of gross income - No Lawyers involved


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/748860--swiss-driver-hit-with-300-000-speeding-ticket


GENEVA–A Swiss court made recent headlines around the world by slapping a euro203,181 ($300,321 Canadian) speeding ticket on a millionaire Ferrari driver. The punishment struck many people as extreme, but Swiss legal experts and campaigners defend basing fines on income as a fair and effective way to make the wealthy obey traffic laws.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16.6 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6063XO20100107

 

[AnnaG]

Sounds like an awesome idea, Goob.

 

[Goober]

Sounds like an awesome idea, Goob.

I was thinking along the lines that justice must be equal - so a fine based upon income would make that more equal than it present is - i know of many drivers that receive photo radar tickets and do not give a whit - they make big dollars - busy - travel a lot - In AB the ticket is sent to the registered owner -

Wonder what they reaction would be if the ticket was in the 10-20 grand mark -

 

[JLM]

Court Fines based upon income & assets

Some European countries have been doing this very same thing for a few years or longer.


I mostly read of this when a wealthy fellow has been fined a few hundred thousand dollars because of excessive speeding.

Should we not implement income/asset based fines for such offences as speeding, Due Care & Attention and in particular Impaired driving
An example being Impaired Driving - Eastern Canada has on average higher fines and more often then not incarceration as well. Ontario and West the numbers drop. Going from memory on an old article I read a bit ago so it is not a point of contention

Example - Persons income 50 k - fined 2 K for Impaired - 4 % of gross income


Example - Persons income 150 k - fined 2 K for Impaired - Approx 1.40 % of gross income - No Lawyers involved


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/748860--swiss-driver-hit-with-300-000-speeding-ticket


GENEVA–A Swiss court made recent headlines around the world by slapping a euro203,181 ($300,321 Canadian) speeding ticket on a millionaire Ferrari driver. The punishment struck many people as extreme, but Swiss legal experts and campaigners defend basing fines on income as a fair and effective way to make the wealthy obey traffic laws.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16.6 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland.


[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6063XO20100107"]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6063XO20100107[/URL]

Yes, I've always thought fines are grossly unfair and it would be a hassel to figure out what fine is fair as people lie about their wealth. Strokes with the cat and nine tails is more equitable- that could be done according to age- the older you are the more lashes as you should know better.

 

[Goober]

Yes, I've always thought fines are grossly unfair and it would be a hassel to figure out what fine is fair as people lie about their wealth. Strokes with the cat and nine tails is more equitable- that could be done according to age- the older you are the more lashes as you should know better.

The adage age brings wisdom is not the best to go on. Plenty of old fools around - they just happened to be lucky and survived.

 

[TenPenny]

So, in other words, justice should be different, depending on your income?

So maybe, if an unemployed person commits a crime, they serve 10 years, but a guy with a job only serves 1?

In other words, a crime is more severe if you make more money.

 

[JLM]

So, in other words, justice should be different, depending on your income?

So maybe, if an unemployed person commits a crime, they serve 10 years, but a guy with a job only serves 1?

In other words, a crime is more severe if you make more money.

I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I think what the poster was suggesting was equity of effort exacted to atone for the offense. Let's say it's a speeding infraction -$150 for a dentist is very much different than $150 for a dishwasher at McDonalds. Much more fair would be 2 hours wages for each of them. :smile:

 

[Goober]

So, in other words, justice should be different, depending on your income?

So maybe, if an unemployed person commits a crime, they serve 10 years, but a guy with a job only serves 1?

In other words, a crime is more severe if you make more money.

I think I was reasonably clear on what would apply - If a fine is to be used as a deterrent then as I stated - a lower income person is punished in a disproportionate way compared to a person that has a higher wealth.

So basically fines are not fair based upon the system in use today. Equal punishment does not equate to the same fine/penalty for the same offence - based upon percentage then the impact would be more comparable.

 

[taxslave]

Sounds like yet another socialist tax grab. If you are on welfare do you get off free?

 

[Goober]

Sounds like yet another socialist tax grab. If you are on welfare do you get off free?

How do you figure that - Even now do you think a person on welfare pays a fine -

You know as well as i that those with money can afford lawyers - the vast majority of Canadians cannot.

 

[JLM]

Sounds like yet another socialist tax grab. If you are on welfare do you get off free?

NO you clean the street with a tooth brush.............:lol::lol::lol:

 

[VanIsle]

How do you figure that - Even now do you think a person on welfare pays a fine -

You know as well as i that those with money can afford lawyers - the vast majority of Canadians cannot.

I worked for a law firm. I was shocked one day when one lawyer was leaving the office to go to court for an impaired charge. He stood at my desk having a glance at the file. He didn't waste 5 min. on it. He lost. He didn't care. Having money isn't always an advantage.

 

[Goober]

I worked for a law firm. I was shocked one day when one lawyer was leaving the office to go to court for an impaired charge. He stood at my desk having a glance at the file. He didn't waste 5 min. on it. He lost. He didn't care. Having money isn't always an advantage.

If you ever need a lawyer it is - The Lawyer in this case knew he could not win - Money did nothing - In other cases it does - you know that as well as I do.

 

[VanIsle]

If you ever need a lawyer it is - The Lawyer in this case knew he could not win - Money did nothing - In other cases it does - you know that as well as I do.

I do but - you do need a lawyer who cares first. Welfare people were mentioned earlier. Well - if people on welfare lose their drivers licence, chances are, it's a pain but little more than that. For the big earners - most of them need their car to get to work with. So, the person on welfare (in this type of case) doesn't matter. In fact, the person on welfare is probably going to get a lawyer for free. Legal Aid. Lawyers don't like doing legal aid so while the welfare person will get a lawyer for free and the money bags will pay, both will get about the same amount of attention paid to their case unless they are an important client.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I read an article a few years ago about this system being used in Finland. The example they gave was a multi-billionair being fined $500,000 for a traffic offense when the fine for the average wage earner would have been about a $100. The principle is quite simple. The aim is to make a fine as painful for the wealthy as it is for the average Joe.

I remember an anecdote about boxing legend Jack Johnson speeding through Georgia and being pulled over by the police for exceeding the speed limit. He was fined on the spot and pulled out a wad of cash and handed a $100 bill to the officer. When the officer told him that he did not have change for such a large bill (this was the 1930s) Johnson told him to keep the change as he would be returning through Georgia in a few weeks.

 

[Scott Free]

Sounds like yet another socialist tax grab. If you are on welfare do you get off free?

You nailed it.

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

-Karl Marx

 

[bobnoorduyn]

We do have a constitutional right to be treated equally under and before the law. We already have laws that treat some offenders unequally, (or in the words of Geoge Orwell, "more equally than others") which opens the door to legal subjectivity. Adding another level of subjectivity is grossly unfair, and probably unconstitutional. We have already let Justicia have a peek, removing her blindfold completely will certainly put the law in disrepute. Just because some European countries are heading down this socialist road does not make it right, nor does it mean we have to follow them into the abyss.

 

[TenPenny]

I read an article a few years ago about this system being used in Finland. The example they gave was a multi-billionair being fined $500,000 for a traffic offense when the fine for the average wage earner would have been about a $100. The principle is quite simple. The aim is to make a fine as painful for the wealthy as it is for the average Joe.

And by the same token, a person with a job values his time more than a person without a job, so jail sentences should be the same; people with better jobs should serve shorter sentences than people with no jobs.

 

[JLM]

And by the same token, a person with a job values his time more than a person without a job, so jail sentences should be the same; people with better jobs should serve shorter sentences than people with no jobs.

I guess, as long as they can get a judge to buy it.........................but I wouldn't hold my breath- judges aren't all stupid............:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[VanIsle]

And by the same token, a person with a job values his time more than a person without a job, so jail sentences should be the same; people with better jobs should serve shorter sentences than people with no jobs.

We feed people with no jobs one way or another so I guess in some respects - it doesn't matter. However, the one we feed may be the only one there to look out for the children that might be there. Jail time might be better served as community time.