I think fines and court costs should be ajusted to one's net worth or yearly income.

[NobleSavage]

If you are living on minimum wage a $200 dollar speeding ticked is a big deal. For someone making a $100K it's just an inconvenience. Where I live if you get caught with less than an ounce of weed you are looking at spending $1000. That could completely wreck someones life if they were living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think fines and court costs should be ajusted to one's net worth or yearly income

If you are living on minimum wage a $200 dollar speeding ticked is a big deal. For someone making a $100K it's just an inconvenience. Where I live if you get caught with less than an ounce of weed you are looking at spending $1000. That could completely wreck someones life if they were living paycheck to paycheck.

OK

 

[bilby]

It was trialled in the UK in the late 80s or early 90s, If I recall correctly. The right wing tabloid press went nuts, going on about how a man had been fined a million quid for overstaying his parking meter by five minutes; or how a benefit scrounger only got fined a pound for some heinous crime; and how it was all dreadfully unfair, and it was dropped.

To me it would make sense to adjust fines based on income; but it appears that it is politically impossible.*



















*'Politically impossible' is a popular phrase that means 'Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the idea'

 

[fromderinside]

I think fines and court costs should be ajusted to one's net worth or yearly income

If you are living on minimum wage a $200 dollar speeding ticked is a big deal. For someone making a $100K it's just an inconvenience. Where I live if you get caught with less than an ounce of weed you are looking at spending $1000. That could completely wreck someones life if they were living paycheck to paycheck.

OK

So why not make penalties in a form which levels the floor like, say, time. I believe one day of my time is just as valuable as one hour of Warren Buffett's time.

Looked at this way crimes should be easy to adjudicate. Kill someone and you are responsible for replacing the time lost to his family and employers. If you are at the low end of means or the high end of means you must provide whatever you provide for yourself in terms of time to the ones you harmed.

I think such an arrangement would soon bring incomes into more equitable standings since the poor would only provide what they can accomplish as punishment while the rich would provide substantially more for in capital for the same crime. Until the income becomes balanced rich would be targets of choice.

 

[bilby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

 

[Trausti]

So then you must disclose your financial assets when you get a speeding ticket. Swell.

 

[NobleSavage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

From your link

A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated and without salary.

I really don't like this. I don't think someone should go to jail if they can't pay the fine. A minimum wage worker with kids can't afford to take a few days off work and sit in jail. A wealthy person, no big deal. And jail is really stupid for non-violent misdemeanors.

- - - Updated - - -

So then you must disclose your financial assets when you get a speeding ticket. Swell.

Just show the court your last tax return. I don't see that as a bid deal. If you go to a bank to get a loan they want to see tax returns.

 

[bilby]

So then you must disclose your financial assets when you get a speeding ticket. Swell.

You must disclose your financial assets to the IRS already; why would this be a big deal? Indeed, it would make sense to base fines on the income on your most recent tax return - so no new disclosure would be needed at all.

Of course, if you really see disclosure as a bad thing, then that is an incentive not to break the law; so that's another point in favour of the idea.

 

[bilby]

From your link

A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated and without salary.

I really don't like this. I don't think someone should go to jail if they can't pay the fine. A minimum wage worker with kids can't afford to take a few days off work and sit in jail. A wealthy person, no big deal. And jail is really stupid for non-violent misdemeanors.

Er, it isn't a suggestion; it is a description of how punishments currently work.

A court either sends you to jail, or it fines you; as you point out, going to jail is a financial burden; so the alternative to jail - fines - should, according to the Day-fine idea, impose a similar burden. If the court thinks a week in jail is an appropriate punishment, then under the day-fine ideal, they would offer you the option of instead paying a week's income as a fine.

The whole point is to make it as big a deal for the wealthy offender as it is for the poor one.

The article is poorly worded; but I don't think it is suggesting jail as an alternative to fines; it is suggesting exactly the opposite.

 

[Trausti]

So then you must disclose your financial assets when you get a speeding ticket. Swell.

You must disclose your financial assets to the IRS already; why would this be a big deal? Indeed, it would make sense to base fines on the income on your most recent tax return - so no new disclosure would be needed at all.

Of course, if you really see disclosure as a bad thing, then that is an incentive not to break the law; so that's another point in favour of the idea.

The federal government doesn't issue traffic tickets (unless you're on a military base, etc.). Moreover, think of the time necessary to go through that process - submitting documents to the Court; having a prosecutor scrutinize the filing; hire a lawyer to challenge the prosecutor? Now it's part of the public record. Personal income tax records are confidential, BTW. And if your concern is for the low-income population, how do you think they'd make out in this process? What a waste of judicial resources just to badger someone in a higher income bracket than you. (Do you imagine that a judge would want to deal this crap?) Pathological altruism run wild.

 

[bilby]

You must disclose your financial assets to the IRS already; why would this be a big deal? Indeed, it would make sense to base fines on the income on your most recent tax return - so no new disclosure would be needed at all.

Of course, if you really see disclosure as a bad thing, then that is an incentive not to break the law; so that's another point in favour of the idea.

The federal government doesn't issue traffic tickets (unless you're on a military base, etc.). Moreover, think of the time necessary to go through that process - submitting documents to the Court; having a prosecutor scrutinize the filing; hire a lawyer to challenge the prosecutor? Now it's part of the public record. Personal income tax records are confidential, BTW. And if your concern is for the low-income population, how do you think they'd make out in this process? What a waste of judicial resources just to badger someone in a higher income bracket than you. (Do you imagine that a judge would want to deal this crap?) Pathological altruism run wild.

I don't see anything in here that refutes my points. You disclose your income to the government; this idea is not intended to fit specifically to the crazy US model of multi-tiered government, but even there, what is the big deal about disclosing to a state government information you already disclose to the feds?

The legal system in your country is indeed insanely inefficient; but that is not a problem with this particular proposal, it is a more general problem with your legal system.

How do you think the 'low income population' would make out in this process? What is it that you imagine would make this worse for them than for any other offender?

This system is currently in effect in Finland; so it is demonstrably not impossible to implement. As far as I can tell, the Finns are very happy with it.

 

[Trausti]

The federal government doesn't issue traffic tickets (unless you're on a military base, etc.). Moreover, think of the time necessary to go through that process - submitting documents to the Court; having a prosecutor scrutinize the filing; hire a lawyer to challenge the prosecutor? Now it's part of the public record. Personal income tax records are confidential, BTW. And if your concern is for the low-income population, how do you think they'd make out in this process? What a waste of judicial resources just to badger someone in a higher income bracket than you. (Do you imagine that a judge would want to deal this crap?) Pathological altruism run wild.

I don't see anything in here that refutes my points. You disclose your income to the government; this idea is not intended to fit specifically to the crazy US model of multi-tiered government, but even there, what is the big deal about disclosing to a state government information you already disclose to the feds?

The legal system in your country is indeed insanely inefficient; but that is not a problem with this particular proposal, it is a more general problem with your legal system.

How do you think the 'low income population' would make out in this process? What is it that you imagine would make this worse for them than for any other offender?

This system is currently in effect in Finland; so it is demonstrably not impossible to implement. As far as I can tell, the Finns are very happy with it.

Heh. You're right. I prefer to live in a country where any government official can't just pull up my confidential information and use it against me. I think privacy is important. Silly me.

 

[bilby]

I don't see anything in here that refutes my points. You disclose your income to the government; this idea is not intended to fit specifically to the crazy US model of multi-tiered government, but even there, what is the big deal about disclosing to a state government information you already disclose to the feds?

The legal system in your country is indeed insanely inefficient; but that is not a problem with this particular proposal, it is a more general problem with your legal system.

How do you think the 'low income population' would make out in this process? What is it that you imagine would make this worse for them than for any other offender?

This system is currently in effect in Finland; so it is demonstrably not impossible to implement. As far as I can tell, the Finns are very happy with it.

Heh. You're right. I prefer to live in a country where any government official can't just pull up my confidential information and use it against me. I think privacy is important. Silly me.

As nobody was proposing to give 'any government official' any such ability, this response does not constitute a contribution to the discussion at all.

I prefer to live in a country where people can't ignore the law just because they are wealthy enough that the fines are inconsequential. Silly me.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Although my license is in good order now, my license was suspended twice. At that time I was living paycheck to paycheck, out far from any public transportation, and although I knew my license would be suspended for non-payment of a ticket, I kept driving. I didn't have friends or family I could rely on to get to work, and the girlfriend and I at the time shard a vehicle and had to get back and forth to work. We had kids to support as well as ourselves. When I went to court for the first ticket, I explained the situation and then paid it when tax time came around, but I forgot about a separate payment of $50.00 in court fees. A couple of years later I get pulled over for supposedly running a stop sign. My license was re-suspended for nonpayment of those court fees, plus a warrant (unknown to me) had been issued for my arrest.

So, I was cuffed and taken in to the local jail for the city I was pulled over in, and I used my one phone call to call my girlfriend to let her know what was going on. I get arraigned in video court the next day, and I'm ordered to pay the court costs plus other fees and so on, totaling up almost $400. I don't have it, my girlfriend doesn't have it. No one does, so I sit in the drunk tank there. One day, two days, three. Then they transfer me to the jail where I actually owe the old outstanding court fee. An hour and a half drive. I get rebooked and stay there for a few days. It took some doing to get answers, but apparently you can do time served to pay this kind of debt off, so I only have a few more months of waiting and I'll be a free man once more. Yipee. Fortunately a few people pooled their resources after they got paid and got me out. I owed $50.00. My stay ended up being 8 days. It ended up costing more in officer salaries to book me the first time than the fine was worth. After that the state had to pay 8 days of incarceration, transport to another facility, and further court fees. Of course I lost my job being gone for 8 days, employers don't generally care why you're in jail, they just want to move on. Cost to get my license back in order? Almost $2000.

If you're a tax payer, they are pissing your money away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So then you must disclose your financial assets when you get a speeding ticket. Swell.

You must disclose your financial assets to the IRS already; why would this be a big deal? Indeed, it would make sense to base fines on the income on your most recent tax return - so no new disclosure would be needed at all.

Actually, no. There's no obligation to report your assets unless they are held in foreign bank accounts or substantial interests in foreign corporations. (And these rules exist to ensure the income gets reported.)

You must report income, not assets.



As for the general idea: I hate it.

1) Net worth is a really bad idea--entrepreneurs might have a lot of paper wealth without much liquid wealth. (For a period of years my former boss was worth upwards of $10M on paper--but it was totally illiquid and in the end something like $20M went poof over three years, leaving him destitute.)

2) It provides an incentive to law enforcement to hunt the rich. The financial motivations for tickets are bad enough now, this would make it worse.

I think the real answer is to go the opposite direction: I would like to see the fine abolished as a means of punishment of individuals. Things that carry fines now would carry community service penalties instead. An hour is an hour if you're a beggar or Bill Gates.

It also removes the financial incentive the state has for imposing fines.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't see anything in here that refutes my points. You disclose your income to the government; this idea is not intended to fit specifically to the crazy US model of multi-tiered government, but even there, what is the big deal about disclosing to a state government information you already disclose to the feds?

The legal system in your country is indeed insanely inefficient; but that is not a problem with this particular proposal, it is a more general problem with your legal system.

How do you think the 'low income population' would make out in this process? What is it that you imagine would make this worse for them than for any other offender?

This system is currently in effect in Finland; so it is demonstrably not impossible to implement. As far as I can tell, the Finns are very happy with it.

Heh. You're right. I prefer to live in a country where any government official can't just pull up my confidential information and use it against me. I think privacy is important. Silly me.

The credit bureaus have that info and they sell it to the highest bidder. I think privacy is very important, but I'm come to the conclusion that privacy is dead. We live in database nation now and there is no going back.

 

[NobleSavage]

You must disclose your financial assets to the IRS already; why would this be a big deal? Indeed, it would make sense to base fines on the income on your most recent tax return - so no new disclosure would be needed at all.

Actually, no. There's no obligation to report your assets unless they are held in foreign bank accounts or substantial interests in foreign corporations. (And these rules exist to ensure the income gets reported.)

You must report income, not assets.

Ok, we use yearly income. Forget net worth.

As for the general idea: I hate it.

1) Net worth is a really bad idea--entrepreneurs might have a lot of paper wealth without much liquid wealth. (For a period of years my former boss was worth upwards of $10M on paper--but it was totally illiquid and in the end something like $20M went poof over three years, leaving him destitute.)

2) It provides an incentive to law enforcement to hunt the rich. The financial motivations for tickets are bad enough now, this would make it worse.

If the rich were targeted they would have the political clout to fight back. Maybe change some of these stupid laws that are designed to generate revenue for cities. Personally, I'd like to see all fines go into a general fund at the State level that could be used for road repair.

I think the real answer is to go the opposite direction: I would like to see the fine abolished as a means of punishment of individuals. Things that carry fines now would carry community service penalties instead. An hour is an hour if you're a beggar or Bill Gates.-

I had to do 40 hours of community service once. It was no big deal. I just took a weak off work. How many people who make minimum wage and have kids to feed can take a week off work?

 

[Jayjay]

Heh. You're right. I prefer to live in a country where any government official can't just pull up my confidential information and use it against me. I think privacy is important. Silly me.

As a side note, income tax records in Finland are not confidential in Finland, but a matter of public record (though recently moving away from that).

 

[arkirk]

How about we call a spade a spade? The marijuana laws are stupid and based on the synthetic fiber industry's interest in the suppression of the cultivation of hemp. Everybody with big machinery and investment in our country wants the security of a monopoly. So there really is not particular need to fine ANYBODY ANY AMOUNT for possession of pot at all.

On the environmental front, industrial polluters must invest a lot in infrastructure to pollute a lot and the fines should be based on their ability to pay for the damage they cause up to and including everything they have if the damage is that large.
Remediation costs for chemical contamination of aquifers and rivers etc. are staggering. Companies like BP for example are so huge that they usually may pay a whopping sounding fine to a wage earner but in reality it is just the cost of doing business to them and they go on to pollute some more, unscathed and completely undeterred.

 

[dismal]

How about we call a spade a spade? The marijuana laws are stupid and based on the synthetic fiber industry's interest in the suppression of the cultivation of hemp.

That's just what the Big Hemp companies want you to think.