Court Fines based upon income & assets

[JLM]

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.

I think in the vast majority of cases jail time should be replaced with "community time", unless the person is dangerous or like in the cases of Conrad Black or Madoff a serious predator. "Warehousing" a person does no one any good. The punishment can be made just as miserable outside of jail (eg. cleaning Main St. with a toothbrush) while performing a needed function in the community.

 

[TenPenny]

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:

Well, you're saying that a person with more money should have to pay more of that money in fines.
People with more time should have to pay more of that time in jail time.

It's exactly the same concept.

 

[JLM]

Well, you're saying that a person with more money should have to pay more of that money in fines.
People with more time should have to pay more of that time in jail time.

It's exactly the same concept.

Not having a crystal ball so having not much clue how long anyone is going to live, it would be a pretty formidable task to figure out who has more time. Day by day we have 24 hours and I doubt if any judge in the world is going to make a judgment on who makes the best use of their time. :smile::smile:

 

[taxslave]

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.

Simple. The person on welfare will not have the money to pay a fine which in any event would just be recycling tax money so he/she goes to jail for a few days still on the taxpayers dime. The person with a job cannot afford to take the time off work to sit in jail so he/she pays the fine. There for a fine based on income is simply a tax grab unless you are so rich or have so little to do that you can take the time to sit in jail for a few days.
Actually it is those with no money that can afford lawyers because they get legal aid. And many lawyers really milk the legal aid system. The really rich can pay for their own lawyers while those of us that work can do neither.

 

[L Gilbert]

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

Why not? Income taxes are.

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.

So it's ok with you if you get fined 90% of your monthly income and some Bill Gates type gets fine 0.00015% of his monthly income as long as the fine is the same? Who do you think would stop the fineable activity first, you or Bill-type? Do you really think Bill would stop at all?

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:

I think it was more like providing equal incentive to stop doing the offense.

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

The alternative to not paying a fine is what? Jail? That means the gov't would be spending money to keep someone that owed the gov't money, right?

You nailed it.

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

-Karl Marx

... and the gov'ts need a LOT.
What's your answer then. No fine for the rich, just give them jailtime to keep them from doing the offense again?

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.

Equality is nice when it isn't imbalanced. Who feels the pinch in the wallet more when paying a $250 fine, a guy who earns $250 a day or a guy that earns $250 a second. Is that equal?

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.

A much better idea, yep.

 

[Johnnny]

as much as it sounds like a good idea, its not......

 

[L Gilbert]

as much as it sounds like a good idea, its not......

Yeah, it is.

 

[Johnnny]

on second thought i guess so, but i feel that mabye it would discourage people from trying to find high paying jobs, but that might be an extreme...

For example i make 40$ more a day than a friend for example, and say we both get caught at the same time for stealing newspaper machines. I get a higher fine, i dont like that...

We were both equally stupid about it, and were both middle class....

 

[TenPenny]

So it's ok with you if you get fined 90% of your monthly income and some Bill Gates type gets fine 0.00015% of his monthly income as long as the fine is the same? Who do you think would stop the fineable activity first, you or Bill-type? Do you really think Bill would stop at all?

Justice is blind. Fines should be the same for everyone. Otherwise, it isn't fair and equal treatment.

 

[Bar Sinister]

For most of Western judicial history there has always been one law for the poor and another for the rich. This would seem to be a way of evening it up.

 

[AnnaG]

Justice is blind. Fines should be the same for everyone. Otherwise, it isn't fair and equal treatment.

Fining poor people the same as rich people isn't fair or equal either. The poor feel it; the rich don't. Fines are supposed to be a deterrent. What's a couple hundred to some idiot with millions? Where's the deterrent?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Fining poor people the same as rich people isn't fair or equal either. The poor feel it; the rich don't. Fines are supposed to be a deterrent. What's a couple hundred to some idiot with millions? Where's the deterrent?

The problem is; where does it stop? Because someone's earning power is unequal to another's is irrelevent. Life is not fair and people will only gain equality upon death. Trying to legislate equality is as ineffective as it is moronic and only creates more problems than it supposedly solves, failed and current socialist states have proven that time and time and time again, yet liberal just can't get that through their thick skulls. Equality under and before the law and equal protection thereof has to be the standard othewise any hint of equality becomes even more subjective than it already is.

 

[TenPenny]

If we accept the idea that monetary punishment, ie, fines, should be different depending on how much money the offender has, then it only makes sense that time punishment, ie, jail time, should be different depending on how much spare time the offender has. And so, people who are unemployed, retired, on welfare, etc, should have vastly longer jail sentences than those with full time jobs. Part time workers could be in-between.

 

[lone wolf]

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.

For somebody on welfare, losing that licence renders them closer to unemployable. Not everyone is on it because they want to be.

Community service - in schoolbus-yellow overalls - hits where it hurts: The Image....

 

[bobnoorduyn]

One other way to look at this would be give examples of more serious crimes. If someone commits homicide, of say a prostitute or homeless person, should the offender recieve a lesser sentence than they would had the victim been the breadwinner or caregiver of a family? If your answer is "no", then you have no argument for basing fines on income or assets. For justice to be served it has to be blind, not stupid.

 

[Scott Free]

Fines are mostly ridiculous anyway; a punitive measure against minor infractions that should have been ignored in the first place. Pure and simple, in most cases, they're just a money grab and a way to keep poor people from parking in the wrong place or driving too quickly. They allow privilege and elitism to have their place.

 

[AnnaG]

The problem is; where does it stop? Because someone's earning power is unequal to another's is irrelevent. Life is not fair and people will only gain equality upon death. Trying to legislate equality is as ineffective as it is moronic and only creates more problems than it supposedly solves, failed and current socialist states have proven that time and time and time again, yet liberal just can't get that through their thick skulls. Equality under and before the law and equal protection thereof has to be the standard othewise any hint of equality becomes even more subjective than it already is.

I am fine with equality under and before the law. But if the law is equal in one aspect and not in another I see an imbalance in equality. It's senseless and we might as well make the whole thing arbitrary.
If you put a super heavy weight boxer in a ring with a welter weight, would you expect not to handicap somewhere?
Or put Tiger Woods up against One-legged Joe from across the street, would you not expect a handicap somewhere?

If we accept the idea that monetary punishment, ie, fines, should be different depending on how much money the offender has, then it only makes sense that time punishment, ie, jail time, should be different depending on how much spare time the offender has. And so, people who are unemployed, retired, on welfare, etc, should have vastly longer jail sentences than those with full time jobs. Part time workers could be in-between.

That sounds cool, too.

For somebody on welfare, losing that licence renders them closer to unemployable. Not everyone is on it because they want to be.

Conversely, why would some millionaire squawk about losing his DL? He/she can afford to hire a driver.

Community service - in schoolbus-yellow overalls - hits where it hurts: The Image....

.... with a bright yellow pointed hat, too.