Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

2010-01-11 14:22:59
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

$19.99 ... is always $19.99 in transit, even if its value may have been different to its various owners at different points in the transaction.
What exactly do you guys not understand about that?

CameronPoe wrote:

you can only equate it to the suffering the fine imposes on the criminal.
Speaks only to deterrent, which has nothing to do with the equal application of the laws. There are a slew of other options that have been mentioned here if deterrent is what you are after, all that treat everyone the same under the law.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Somehow this is fair but levying a fine of $300 at Person A and $3000 at Person B for the same crime is somehow unfair. I'm confused.
Because what one concerns their time with is of no consequence to the public. If you can only make $300 in your time in jail, cool. If you could have made $3 million in your time in jail, awesome. The punishment for the crime is x time in jail, and you're going to spend x time in jail, regardless of your circumstance.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Socialist fines do fly in the face of the idea that the more money you have the higher above the law you are, hence why all the right-wingers here are wailing so loudly.
How about we read the thread hrmmm?
2010-01-11 14:45:16
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6846

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

you can only equate it to the suffering the fine imposes on the criminal.
Speaks only to deterrent, which has nothing to do with the equal application of the laws. There are a slew of other options that have been mentioned here if deterrent is what you are after, all that treat everyone the same under the law.
Fines are generally used to deter people from engaging in crime. That's why it says 'Penalty of €500 will be imposed for x, y, z' in trains, buses, with respect to TV licences, etc. It's a deterrent (and a punishment). Imposing a $20 fine on a hobo and on a multimillionaire is not and never will equate to giving each the same punishment. It's entirely relative. You're caught up in some weird absolutist common sense vacuum where money means the same thing to everyone, regardless of means. It simply doesn't, no matter how you swing it.

Why can't you get the relative nature of the impact of the fine on the criminal and it's relative effect as a deterrent/punishment?

Fines are simple and easy to administer also. Your principle will only allow for non-monetary punishment. That why your principle in this instance fails. Imposing fines is way cheaper and simpler than building another 3000 jails and manning them.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-11 14:51:12)

2010-01-11 14:47:09
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6513|teh FIN-land

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!
You also seem to have missed the bit about jail time or community service.
no i didn't miss it but we're talking about proportional fines not jail or community service. in fact I already said my opinion about sending everyone to jail for speeding - it's unworkable and daft.

what about my point regarding your 'don't do the crime...' statement? isn't that what you're arguing? If you CAN afford it then go ahead!?
2010-01-11 14:50:50
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6513|teh FIN-land

Dilbert_X wrote:

There you have it.

Socialist fines do fly in the face of the idea that the more money you have the higher above the law you are, hence why all the right-wingers here are wailing so loudly.
come on dilbert we already agreed this wasn't a 'scoialist' issue ffs...don't get that dragged up again eh?
2010-01-11 15:06:04
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

you can only equate it to the suffering the fine imposes on the criminal.
Speaks only to deterrent, which has nothing to do with the equal application of the laws. There are a slew of other options that have been mentioned here if deterrent is what you are after, all that treat everyone the same under the law.
Fines are generally used to deter people from engaging in crime. That's why it says 'Penalty of €500 will be imposed for x, y, z' in trains, buses, with respect to TV licences, etc. It's a deterrent (and a punishment). Imposing a $20 fine on a hobo and on a multimillionaire is not and never will equate to giving each the same punishment. It's entirely relative. You're caught up in some weird absolutist common sense vacuum where money means the same thing to everyone, regardless of means. It simply doesn't, no matter how you swing it.

Why can't you get the relative nature of the impact of the fine on the criminal and it's relative effect as a deterrent/punishment?

Fines are simple and easy to administer also. Your principle will only allow for non-monetary punishment. That why your principle in this instance fails. Imposing fines is way cheaper and simpler than building another 3000 jails and manning them.

Deterrent is one of many reasons for punishment.

Your problem with my understanding of the "relative nature" of punishments is because you guys are continually using the word punishment incorrectly. The punishment is what the state hands down - not how someone deals with that punishment. The punishment is $20 to the hobo and the millionaire, no if ands or buts about it. How that punishment is dealt with is an entirely different matter, and this is what you are confusing for punishment.

The state has no business with how someone copes with a punishment. To "adjust" the penalty in order to even out the end result is wrong. If speeding is worth $300 to a society, then that's how much it's worth. If it's worth 30 days in jail, that's how much it's worth. How fat your wallet is has nothing to do with how heinous the crime is - threatening lives with reckless driving doesn't suddenly get a lot more dangerous if you're going 80 in a Ford Focus or 80 in a Lambo. If it's that big of a deal, then everyone needs to be punished harshly for it.

The problem is you talk like it's a big deal, but it's not to you. You don't really care that people speed, you are jealous of someone with the money to speed in a nice car. Fact is you're just as much of a danger to society as Daddy Warbucks on the road, and should be treated as such.

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!
You also seem to have missed the bit about jail time or community service.
no i didn't miss it but we're talking about proportional fines not jail or community service. in fact I already said my opinion about sending everyone to jail for speeding - it's unworkable and daft.

what about my point regarding your 'don't do the crime...' statement? isn't that what you're arguing? If you CAN afford it then go ahead!?
My response to the former was the latter. If you want people to not speed, regardless of income, then force prison time, community service, something in that vein. It is perfectly workable and not at all "daft".

The problem is you guys would rather take a logical solution over a moral one.
2010-01-11 15:28:41
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6846

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Deterrent is one of many reasons for punishment.

Your problem with my understanding of the "relative nature" of punishments is because you guys are continually using the word punishment incorrectly. The punishment is what the state hands down - not how someone deals with that punishment. The punishment is $20 to the hobo and the millionaire, no if ands or buts about it. How that punishment is dealt with is an entirely different matter, and this is what you are confusing for punishment.
Again, you are being impractical. The state can intelligently hand down punishments that actually punish - be that by financial means or otherwise. Whether they have a 'right' to do so is entirely a matter of opinion. A $20 fine does not punish a millionaire, it does punish someone on the breadline, because of the effect on the life of the person who committed the crime. The state can discern and legislate accordingly (and has in the OP case).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The state has no business with how someone copes with a punishment.

To "adjust" the penalty in order to even out the end result is wrong. If speeding is worth $300 to a society, then that's how much it's worth. If it's worth 30 days in jail, that's how much it's worth. How fat your wallet is has nothing to do with how heinous the crime is - threatening lives with reckless driving doesn't suddenly get a lot more dangerous if you're going 80 in a Ford Focus or 80 in a Lambo. If it's that big of a deal, then everyone needs to be punished harshly for it.
I'll stop you right at your first sentence: that is a matter purely of personal opinion. I would contend otherwise.

PS Society is not some big contiguous blob - it's a tad bit more diverse, stratified and complex than you would like to have us believe. Setting the bar high would have this effect: breadliner caught speeding - punishment: bankruptcy; multi-millionaire caught speeding: no yacht this month. The punishment is way harsher on the former than it is on the latter. Hence the need to differentiate and proportionalise.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The problem is you talk like it's a big deal, but it's not to you. You don't really care that people speed, you are jealous of someone with the money to speed in a nice car. Fact is you're just as much of a danger to society as Daddy Warbucks on the road, and should be treated as such.
I couldn't care less about what someone drives. I have little interest in cars and never have. And you hit the nail on the head with your sentence: "someone with the money to speed in a nice car" - someone above the law because he can pay for the crime with his abundant money. I would never be jealous of such a person, I would strive to have the law adjusted to see that he pays a proportionate and meaningful penalty for committing said crime so that he doesn't reoffend.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-11 15:40:15)

2010-01-11 15:35:19
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6581|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Just read it. How does it apply here? And how does it apply in the context of making people for whom a €50 fine constitutes less than a days interest accrual not feel free to speed as merrily as their heart desires? Practicality.
Equal protection under the law. Fining one person one amount and another a different amount for the exact same crime is not equal protection under the law.

You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.
You want to jail everyone caught for speeding? You should run for office... preferably somewhere where there's unlimited space in jail.
2010-01-11 15:45:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.
You want to jail everyone caught for speeding? You should run for office... preferably somewhere where there's unlimited space in jail.
It would eliminate speeding.
Still don't understand how speeding is treated so trivially when its a safety issue, as opposed to say theft.
Fuck Israel
2010-01-11 15:58:09
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6581|Éire

Dilbert_X wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.
You want to jail everyone caught for speeding? You should run for office... preferably somewhere where there's unlimited space in jail.
It would eliminate speeding.
Still don't understand how speeding is treated so trivially when its a safety issue, as opposed to say theft.
Theft often carries with it the potential threat of violence though. Besides, the notion of locking up everyone who speeds is financially and logistically impossible. Do you seriously have the room and resources to implement such a plan? If you do then by all means go for it. We certainly don't in this country.
2010-01-11 16:01:12
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
Do you seriously think that if the penalty for speeding were 30 days in prison many people would be dumb enough to speed?
You would barely need any more room or resources to implement it.
Theft often carries with it the potential threat of violence though.
And speeding often carries the potential threat of causing death or injury, seems more than comparable.
Fuck Israel
2010-01-11 16:22:48
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6581|Éire

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you seriously think that if the penalty for speeding were 30 days in prison many people would be dumb enough to speed?
You would barely need any more room or resources to implement it.
Theft often carries with it the potential threat of violence though.
And speeding often carries the potential threat of causing death or injury, seems more than comparable.
Yes, I seriously think you'd still have people speeding. People are idiots, you can have your hands cut off for stealing in some countries and yet people still steal in these countries. The threat of jail might act as an effective deterrent to some degree but if you're counting on calling society's bluff by presuming you wouldn't have to follow through on the sentencing you'd very quickly find yourself with a red face and a huge budget deficit.
2010-01-11 16:25:41
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85
See Dil this is what I'm talking about. They make it out like they think speeding is a big deal - but it's not to them. If they seriously want it gone then noteworthy jail time for repeat or egregious offenders is an obvious solution.

CameronPoe wrote:

Again, you are being impractical. The state can intelligently hand down punishments that actually punish - be that by financial means or otherwise. Whether they have a 'right' to do so is entirely a matter of opinion. A $20 fine does not punish a millionaire, it does punish someone on the breadline, because of the effect on the life of the person who committed the crime. The state can discern and legislate accordingly (and has in the OP case)

I'll stop you right at your first sentence: that is a matter purely of personal opinion. I would contend otherwise.

PS Society is not some big contiguous blob - it's a tad bit more diverse, stratified and complex than you would like to have us believe. Setting the bar high would have this effect: breadliner caught speeding - punishment: bankruptcy; multi-millionaire caught speeding: no yacht this month. The punishment is way harsher on the former than it is on the latter. Hence the need to differentiate and proportionalise..
You keep slipping into subjective definitions of punishment. How well one deals with a $20 fine is not the punishment, no matter how grave or trivial the problem. The $20 fine is the punishment.

Of course it is a matter of social opinion. The point here however is you are not meeting a fair and even requirement of justice that I think you yourself would like to fit the definition of. Making the punishment fit the person and not the crime is a philosophy that has no part in Western judiciary systems.

CameronPoe wrote:

I couldn't care less about what someone drives. I have little interest in cars and never have. And you hit the nail on the head with your sentence: "someone with the money to speed in a nice car" - someone above the law because he can pay for the crime with his abundant money. I would never be jealous of such a person, I would strive to have the law adjusted to see that he pays a proportionate and meaningful penalty for committing said crime so that he doesn't reoffend.
Really got to the point there with the first sentence didn't you?

What I am saying is that people are exactly never above the law. Rich or poor, the consequences are the same so far as the state is concerned. The rich man is not "above the law" because he can pay for repeat offenses any more than someone who chooses to do jail time over and over is "above the law".

You want personal, biased "justice". You're not jealous, you just want everyone to suffer the same pain you suffer.

Braddock wrote:

you can have your hands cut off for stealing in some countries and yet people still steal in these countries.
Source so we can laugh at the number comparisons.
2010-01-11 16:29:49
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6923|949

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you seriously think that if the penalty for speeding were 30 days in prison many people would be dumb enough to speed?
You would barely need any more room or resources to implement it.
Theft often carries with it the potential threat of violence though.
And speeding often carries the potential threat of causing death or injury, seems more than comparable.
Yes, people still would speed.  The lack of resources to persecute would be too little to create a negative incentive.   Barely need more room or resources?  You would have to commit hundreds if not thousands of officers strictly to issuing speeding tickets/locking people up in jail.  You'd have to create thousands of new jail cells for people locked up on speeding charges.  That would be a lot of room and resources, even if only for the short term.

Let's be serious here - issuing speeding tickets isn't really about deterrence; it's about generating revenue for the local government.
2010-01-11 16:39:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because what one concerns their time with is of no consequence to the public. If you can only make $300 in your time in jail, cool. If you could have made $3 million in your time in jail, awesome. The punishment for the crime is x time in jail, and you're going to spend x time in jail, regardless of your circumstance.
Nah, I think Galt made a good point with this one.  If the end result is still a higher fine, so to speak, then there's only the practical difference of levying a higher fine (more funds for the state) and taking up jail space (more cost to the state and taxpayers).

I'd rather hurt one guy's piggy bank than all of society's, when it comes to punishment.
2010-01-11 16:48:49
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

I'd rather hurt one guy's piggy bank than all of society's, when it comes to punishment.
Which is what I find despicable and why it's so funny that Galt is on your "side".
2010-01-11 16:53:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd rather hurt one guy's piggy bank than all of society's, when it comes to punishment.
Which is what I find despicable and why it's so funny that Galt is on your "side".
Umm, why is that despicable? Why should all of society pay for the transgressions of a single member? Aren't you an advocate of individualism?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-11 16:55:40
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85
Society has to pay the price for limiting personal freedoms they choose to limit. Once those limitations are codified in a clear and easily understood manner they are to be enforced equally amongst the people.
2010-01-11 16:56:12
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6813|...

makes sense to me
2010-01-11 16:57:31
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6923|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Society has to pay the price for limiting personal freedoms they choose to limit. Once those limitations are codified in a clear and easily understood manner they are to be enforced equally amongst the people.
limiting personal freedom for all of society =/= punishing all of society for one person speeding (through increased burden of cost to support the infrastructure needed to jail speeding drivers).

One's an ideological compromise.  The other is a quantifiable dollar value.
2010-01-11 17:29:36
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6998|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Society has to pay the price for limiting personal freedoms they choose to limit. Once those limitations are codified in a clear and easily understood manner they are to be enforced equally amongst the people.
limiting personal freedom for all of society =/= punishing all of society for one person speeding (through increased burden of cost to support the infrastructure needed to jail speeding drivers).

One's an ideological compromise.  The other is a quantifiable dollar value.
The ideological compromise has a dollar value on it. Society is going to say people can't speed, and if they mean it it's going to cost money to enforce it. That means money for police hardware, money for the police themselves, money for the judicial system, and money to imprison someone.
2010-01-11 19:41:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you seriously think that if the penalty for speeding were 30 days in prison many people would be dumb enough to speed?
You would barely need any more room or resources to implement it.
Theft often carries with it the potential threat of violence though.
And speeding often carries the potential threat of causing death or injury, seems more than comparable.
Yes, people still would speed.  The lack of resources to persecute would be too little to create a negative incentive.   Barely need more room or resources?  You would have to commit hundreds if not thousands of officers strictly to issuing speeding tickets/locking people up in jail.  You'd have to create thousands of new jail cells for people locked up on speeding charges.  That would be a lot of room and resources, even if only for the short term.
No, thats the whole point, if the penalty is severe enough people will decide its not worth doing, barely any enforcement needed - just string up the occasional offender.
Let's be serious here - issuing speeding tickets isn't really about deterrence; it's about generating revenue for the local government.
No it isn't, but if people are dumb enough to voluntarily pay extra tax, which means I pay less, then I'm all for it.
Fuck Israel
2010-01-12 02:12:54
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6581|Éire
@ Dilbert_X

You are seriously underestimating society. You guys have the death penalty for murder in certain states in the US, don't you? Am I to presume there's no murder in these States any more? If people continue to break laws that carry such severe punishments what makes you think they will abstain en masse from breaking laws that carry less severe punishments? If you tried to implement this policy you would look very tough on the podium initially when you first announce it but you would end up crippling your department fiscally and would look rather foolish in the long run.

EDIT: I forgot you're from Oz Dilbert, apologies! But the US example is still relevant to my point.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-12 02:31:03)

2010-01-12 02:38:07
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

Braddock wrote:

@ Dilbert_X

You are seriously underestimating society. You guys have the death penalty for murder in certain states in the US, don't you? Am I to presume there's no murder in these States any more? If people continue to break laws that carry such severe punishments what makes you think they will abstain en masse from breaking laws that carry less severe punishments? If you tried to implement this policy you would look very tough on the podium initially when you first announce it but you would end up crippling your department fiscally and would look rather foolish in the long run.

EDIT: I forgot you're from Oz Dilbert, apologies! But the US example is still relevant to my point.
The average person doesn't commit murder on a daily basis, many people do speed.
UK: ~100 Murders a year, ~5,000 road deaths? Tell me which needs more effort.
Fuck Israel
2010-01-12 02:54:27
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6581|Éire

Dilbert_X wrote:

Braddock wrote:

@ Dilbert_X

You are seriously underestimating society. You guys have the death penalty for murder in certain states in the US, don't you? Am I to presume there's no murder in these States any more? If people continue to break laws that carry such severe punishments what makes you think they will abstain en masse from breaking laws that carry less severe punishments? If you tried to implement this policy you would look very tough on the podium initially when you first announce it but you would end up crippling your department fiscally and would look rather foolish in the long run.

EDIT: I forgot you're from Oz Dilbert, apologies! But the US example is still relevant to my point.
The average person doesn't commit murder on a daily basis, many people do speed.
UK: ~100 Murders a year, ~5,000 road deaths? Tell me which needs more effort.
Rape, theft, murder, assault... jail time has, in all of these cases, failed to stamp out these crimes. Jail for speeding would fail likewise, only in doing so you would fill up every available space in your jail system, effectively crippling your budget. Sure, you might cut down the number of speeding incidents, but at what cost? Would the results justify the lost revenue in speeding fines and the increased expenditure in the jail system? I highly doubt it.
2010-01-12 03:51:07
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
So your argument is rape, theft, murder, assault should no longer warrant jail?
Jail for speeding would fail likewise, only in doing so you would fill up every available space in your jail system, effectively crippling your budget.
Or maybe people would just stop speeding in vast numbers, and people would die or be injured less in car crashes, effectively crippling people less.

Whats the big deal with speeding? Its mainly an egotist thing after all.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-12 04:04:05)

Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard