• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Disproportionate punishment

Kharakov

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
If someone makes 30k a year and pays the same fines as someone who makes 300k a year for the same offense, is this disproportionate punishment?

If someone is unemployed and pays the same fines as someone who makes 300k a year for the same offense, is this disproportionate punishment?

Is it wrong to punish those who enforce disproportionate punishment disproportionately (in other words, capture and torture them before you kill them) to discourage others from enforcing disproportionate punishment?
 
There must be some sort of fallacy at work here. If we give an opinion on the second proposition, we have to concede the first proposition as true, without discussion.

Maybe it's just an appeal to emotion. A judge, in his judicial role and responsibilities, represents society. He/she stands in place of all of us, so an assault and murder upon a judge, for exercising their responsibility under the law, is an assault on all of us.

This means a person who tortures and kills a judge, because of a sentence rendered, will be outnumbered and quickly brought before another judge, who will not find such sophistry the least bit amusing.
 
Some countries do scale fines based on income; some have tried it and then discontinued the practice due to apparently excessive fines (million dollar parking tickets) for the wealthy, and/or apparently over-lenient treatment of the unemployed.

The biggest problem is determining someone's actual ability to pay - millionaires have their money in illiquid assets, so paying a large fine can be problematic; and variations in income can lead to problems; for example, if fines are based on income tax returns, then the basis is potentially a year out of date - should a lottery winner be able to offend with impunity for a year because he was on minimum wage before he won? Should a businessman who goes bankrupt still be fined based on his wealth of a year before? If some other basis is used, how do you reliably measure a person's income, and prevent them from underreporting to reduce their fine?

Is income important, or wealth, or both?

- - - Updated - - -

Loren Pechtel said:
Which is why I think we shouldn't use fines as punishment.
Click to expand...

Wholly do you propose instead?
 
bilby said:
Some countries do scale fines based on income; some have tried it and then discontinued the practice due to apparently excessive fines (million dollar parking tickets) for the wealthy, and/or apparently over-lenient treatment of the unemployed.

The biggest problem is determining someone's actual ability to pay - millionaires have their money in illiquid assets, so paying a large fine can be problematic; and variations in income can lead to problems; for example, if fines are based on income tax returns, then the basis is potentially a year out of date - should a lottery winner be able to offend with impunity for a year because he was on minimum wage before he won? Should a businessman who goes bankrupt still be fined based on his wealth of a year before? If some other basis is used, how do you reliably measure a person's income, and prevent them from underreporting to reduce their fine?

Is income important, or wealth, or both?

- - - Updated - - -

Loren Pechtel said:
Which is why I think we shouldn't use fines as punishment.
Click to expand...

Wholly do you propose instead?
Click to expand...

Some form of community service.
 
Bronzeage said:
There must be some sort of fallacy at work here. If we give an opinion on the second proposition, we have to concede the first proposition as true, without discussion.
Click to expand...
Begging the question, if you think you have to assume the first in order to consider the second.
Bronzeage said:
Maybe it's just an appeal to emotion. A judge, in his judicial role and responsibilities, represents society. He/she stands in place of all of us, so an assault and murder upon a judge, for exercising their responsibility under the law, is an assault on all of us.
Click to expand...
It's an assault on society by the corrupt and powerful if judges and lawmakers continually favor their cronies (the powerful) over society by dispensing justice unequally.

If society does not have legal recourse to correct the actions of judges, because judges hide behind a wall of corrupt lawmakers and fellow judges who continually drag their feet in order to protect their cronies, what punishment will mold their behavior?
Bronzeage said:
This means a person who tortures and kills a judge, because of a sentence rendered, will be outnumbered and quickly brought before another judge, who will not find such sophistry the least bit amusing.
Click to expand...
I'm ostensibly a member of society, and I don't find the sophistry and dragging of feet used to justify unequal dispensation of justice amusing.
 
bilby said:
Some countries do scale fines based on income; some have tried it and then discontinued the practice due to apparently excessive fines (million dollar parking tickets) for the wealthy, and/or apparently over-lenient treatment of the unemployed.
Click to expand...
I wonder what happened in the countries that scaled by income. Do you know if their legal systems targeted the wealthy disproportionately?

I found this article in The Atlantic (I'm not sure of the general bias of the source.. yet):

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...nd-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/

Seems like Finland is doing a lot of things right. Can't believe shady assholes haven't tried to take them down with a scandal yet, maybe they are planting evidence as I type.
 
Seems to me that punishment, although the concept of punishment either changing behavior or serving as a deterrent is debunked, should fit to the individual causing her pain where she lives. Find what is important to the individual then punish the individual in concert with what the individual actually values. For instance young people disproportionately commit suicide when humiliated or shamed publicly. The Japanese have a culture based on honor.

Even the idiot who jacked up prices on an otherwise cheap drug demonstrated unction when publicly shamed for so doing.

Rather than considering punishment disproportionate against other standards such as wealth or power versus norms punish in proportion to the impact the punishment will have on behavior regardless of other metrics.
 
fromderinside said:
Even the idiot who jacked up prices on an otherwise cheap drug demonstrated unction when publicly shamed for so doing.
Click to expand...
He wasn't demonstrating unction to the poor people he screwed, he was demonstrating unction to a bunch of rich powerful assholes who regularly screw over the poor. You think his "unction" would persevere if he was being publicly tried in a low income section of Baltimore by people who are affected by that kind of bullshit day in and day out?
fromderinside said:
Rather than considering punishment disproportionate against other standards such as wealth or power versus norms punish in proportion to the impact the punishment will have on behavior regardless of other metrics.
Click to expand...
Since the whole structure of society is slowly eroded by disproportionate punishment for the poor, despite the fact that it produces quick short term results (freeing the economy by keeping the rich in play), it seems like the wise decision would be to punish the rich more severely in order to bind society together long term.

In fact, I'd think that the rich would welcome public punishment for their wrongdoings if they were good, at the very least voice their understanding of the impact their actions have on the many. So you'd troll them with someone like Shrekli if they didn't voice their understanding, and then expose them. Once you had information on them, of course.

But the system still doesn't allow them to be punished, which seems innately corrupt from one viewpoint.
 
fromderinside said:
...the concept of punishment either changing behavior or serving as a deterrent is debunked...
Click to expand...

No, what's been debunked is that it universally prevents crime - of every type, at all times.

Punishment certainly deters crime.
 
Wouldnt there be an argument that the rich person, who can afford the parking fine, parks illegally more often than the poor person and therefore pays more in fines? Thus, the rich person is, in effect, punished in proportion to their wealth.
 
It depends. Does a wealthy persons car somehow offend more than an unemployed person?

But if you want to equalize society, it's easy. Tax wealth. Incentivize productive activity instead of nonproductive activity.

Shkreli eg contributes nothing with his machinations; he's a parasite.
 
Lion IRC said:
fromderinside said:
...the concept of punishment either changing behavior or serving as a deterrent is debunked...
Click to expand...

No, what's been debunked is that it universally prevents crime - of every type, at all times.

Punishment certainly deters crime.
Click to expand...

Since most of us live in the moment threat of punishment has little or no bearing on whether we commit crime. So, no, punishment does not, unless very specific contingencies exist, deter crime.
 
Kharakov said:
If someone makes 30k a year and pays the same fines as someone who makes 300k a year for the same offense, is this disproportionate punishment?
Click to expand...
Okay kids, whoever does their homework and studies hard will be awarded additional playground minutes for doing well on your test. But, if you break some classroom rules, you'll have some of your minutes taken away, so be good.

Dear parent, your child done very well on her test compared to many of the others, but she lost a whole bunch of minutes she earned because she broke a classroom rule. Yes, she lost a whole lot more playground minutes than those that never sacrificed their time and energy that committed the same offense, but in order to teach her a lesson and feel the pains of not following rules, she has to be disproportionately punished--punished more the greater her sacrifice for doing well.

Yes, you want to curb behavior, but a proportional fine based on income isn't fair because it fails to consider the rest of the equation where there was sacrifice that went into the difference.
 
Ehh, so you're saying someone born into a better situation (maybe just genetically) who ends up with a cushy 300k a year job sacrificed more than someone who scrounges their way up to a 30k a year job?

Fast talking hustlers work verbally, not literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom