errno his argument was I believe that jail doesn't work strictly as a deterrent - which it clearly doesn't since the USA has a massive prison population and shitloads of crime.
Murders more like 1200.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person doesn't commit murder on a daily basis, many people do speed.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.
UK: ~100 Murders a year, ~5,000 road deaths? Tell me which needs more effort.
Road toll more like 3000.
And everyone killed was due to speeding, naturally.
Also gaol time does act as a deterrent, just not to everyone.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2010-01-12 08:20:14)
No that's not my point at all, where did I once suggest that? I would have thought you'd be able to infer from my posts that my position is one where only the more serious crimes, like those involving intentional violence or the threat of violence and/or theft should be punished with jail time. The reason being that incarceration for 'lesser' offences would just not be practical. If I were in office and had infinite space in my prison system then yes, I would consider such a policy but you're living in dreamland.Dilbert_X wrote:
So your argument is rape, theft, murder, assault should no longer warrant jail?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.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.
Whats the big deal with speeding? Its mainly an egotist thing after all.
Let me get this straight (and please correct me if I have this wrong), your policy would be to jail people for speeding and all of a sudden people would just stop speeding, end of problem. Is that right? Well I'm afraid people aren't as predictable as that Dilbert. You'd have an overcrowding problem before you could even say "bankrupt".
The punishment must necessarily fit the person in order for it to indeed be a punishment if the punishment is to be financial, due to the relativity of which I spoke. I see no problem whatsoever with this given the cheap efficient common sense practicality of the imposition of fines. It is your opinion that this philosophy has no part in western judiciary systems. Switzerland just so happens to be a western nation by pretty much all accounts. Perhaps by western you in fact meant to say 'American'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
What exact 'pain' is it that I am suffering? I am a highly paid engineer who wants for nothing. I would be on the receiving end, as you would view it, if I were to commit a crime for which the penalty I described could be administered.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
With respect to the point my view is this: neither cavernous megajails every 50km nor exorbitant fines as measured against the mean or even breadline income of a nation nor trivial fines are practical options for running an economic, effective, practical judicial system. In an ideal world all men would do equal jail time. Unfortunately reality constrains us otherwise - economically and practically. As such it is my opinion that a proportional system of fines for petty offences is the common sense way to do things.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 12:18:28)
I meant Western. There is hypocrisy involved, but no one wants to make the consistency jump from basic human equality rights to not charging rich speeding assholes a quarter of a million.CameronPoe wrote:
The punishment must necessarily fit the person in order for it to indeed be a punishment if the punishment is to be financial, due to the relativity of which I spoke. I see no problem whatsoever with this given the cheap efficient common sense practicality of the imposition of fines. It is your opinion that this philosophy has no part in western judiciary systems. Switzerland just so happens to be a western nation by pretty much all accounts. Perhaps by western you in fact meant to say 'American'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
Common sense has no place in judiciary systems. Facts are the only idea worthy of a courthouse, giving people initiative to take the law into their own hands in the law system is quite the slippery slope.
Metaphorically. You and people like you want to bring everyone to your level - a nice middle class standard.CameronPoe wrote:
What exact 'pain' is it that I am suffering? I am a highly paid engineer who wants for nothing. I would be on the receiving end, as you would view it, if I were to commit a crime for which the penalty I described could be administered.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.
With respect to the point my view is this: neither cavernous megajails every 50km nor exorbitant fines as measured against the mean or even breadline income of a nation nor trivial fines are practical options for running an economic, effective, practical judicial system. In an ideal world all men would do equal jail time. Unfortunately reality constrains us otherwise - economically and practically. As such it is my opinion that a proportional system of fines for petty offences is the common sense way to do things.
I can't get through the first sentence of the second para. I am reading it again and again but I can't puzzle my way through it.
For the last couple sentences, if it's petty then why should someone be paying $290,000 for it? Oh because it's not petty? Then remove their license. Charge community service. Throw them in jail for the night - if that doesn't work, throw them in a pit for a month. No jail space? Shoot them. I don't care. There are a lot of reasonable but fair options for equal application of the law while still maintaining public order. If you don't want to see them because you feel like rich people are playboy assholes that uncontrollably speed around in their Porsche at 100mph and need to have their income cut, that's on you.
I said I thought the fine exuberant but I agree with a similar principle. A banded fine is a straight and simple fact. Much as banded taxes are a fact necessary for practical reasons - as you yourself mentioned in a thread deriding flat tax rates.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I meant Western. There is hypocrisy involved, but no one wants to make the consistency jump from basic human equality rights to not charging rich speeding assholes a quarter of a million.
Common sense has no place in judiciary systems. Facts are the only idea worthy of a courthouse, giving people initiative to take the law into their own hands in the law system is quite the slippery slope.
Did I not say before in a post long long ago that I disagreed with the magnitude of this fine. If someone's life was altered to the extent of 'dragging them down to the middle class' from their 'upper class' status then the system of fines in place would be impractical and unfair. Unless the person involved is some rich kid inheritance case or drug baron that person earned their way to where they are in life and should not have that taken from them or meaningfully damaged in punishment for a petty offence. The system should act as a 'sting' not a life changing event. Your absolutism forces you to take things to ridiculous extremes to get away from what I intend to be a fairly non-extreme argument.CameronPoe wrote:
Metaphorically. You and people like you want to bring everyone to your level - a nice middle class standard.
I can't get through the first sentence of the second para. I am reading it again and again but I can't puzzle my way through it.
For the last couple sentences, if it's petty then why should someone be paying $290,000 for it? Oh because it's not petty? Then remove their license. Charge community service. Throw them in jail for the night - if that doesn't work, throw them in a pit for a month. No jail space? Shoot them. I don't care. There are a lot of reasonable but fair options for equal application of the law while still maintaining public order. If you don't want to see them because you feel like rich people are playboy assholes that uncontrollably speed around in their Porsche at 100mph and need to have their income cut, that's on you.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:00:57)
As I told G@lt earlier, in economics how much you make is practically relevant. In justice it is not.
How is this fine excessive? It's a percentage right? If this fine is excessive, then you're saying there should be a cap...but then those that are rich even for the maximum cap, how is it a "sting" for them?
In a tax system caps make sense because the government doesn't need THAT much money from any one person. From your argument as the fine being a deterrent I don't see how a cap makes any sense.
How is this fine excessive? It's a percentage right? If this fine is excessive, then you're saying there should be a cap...but then those that are rich even for the maximum cap, how is it a "sting" for them?
In a tax system caps make sense because the government doesn't need THAT much money from any one person. From your argument as the fine being a deterrent I don't see how a cap makes any sense.
It is relevant if you're administering fines. I'm saying it should be banded, with a reasonable cap perhaps - or indeed no cap at all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As I told G@lt earlier, in economics how much you make is practically relevant. In justice it is not.
How is this fine excessive? It's a percentage right? If this fine is excessive, then you're saying there should be a cap...but then those that are rich even for the maximum cap, how is it a "sting" for them?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:06:43)
So how is this fine unreasonable?
Having a cap would be the same as the current system with a flat fine. Sure, the number gets bigger but the percentage remains the same as it goes up. It's not going to suddenly bring a wealthy man to his knees or anything, nor is that the intent.CameronPoe wrote:
It is relevant if you're administering fines. I'm saying it should be banded, with a reasonable cap perhaps - or indeed no cap at all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As I told G@lt earlier, in economics how much you make is practically relevant. In justice it is not.
How is this fine excessive? It's a percentage right? If this fine is excessive, then you're saying there should be a cap...but then those that are rich even for the maximum cap, how is it a "sting" for them?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Well I'm not au fait with the income of the party in question so perhaps it might not be. If it's Roman Abramovich for instance he probably wouldn't even notice it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So how is this fine unreasonable?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:11:15)
So what exactly is reasonable?
I thought the point was for it to be a "sting". Not for them to not even notice it.
I thought the point was for it to be a "sting". Not for them to not even notice it.
I'm not a legislator. Coming up with such things is what legislators do - such as those in the western nations of Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France and Austria. If people are unhappy with their decisions then they get voted out of office and invariably new legislation is drafted.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So what exactly is reasonable?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:16:05)
Oh grow some balls. Ballpark number.
Give me a net worth or monthly income and I'll throw out a 'ballpark' number.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh grow some balls. Ballpark number.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:17:33)
$200k/year or ~17k/month
So after tax that's probably about 13k/month. Which equates to about 3k/week. I'd say they'd fall in a band where the fine should be $2000. No long term impact, just possible short term pain.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
$200k/year or ~17k/month
lol ridiculous...you didn't even ask how fast they were going.
$2000 because they are well off. Not because it was an extreme hazard, not because they are a repeat offender.
$2000 because they are well off. Not because it was an extreme hazard, not because they are a repeat offender.
It would obviously be dependent on the nature of the offence muppet. What I posted is the most extreme example.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol ridiculous...you didn't even ask how fast they were going.
$2000 because they are well off. Not because it was an extreme hazard, not because they are a repeat offender.
So 200mph in a 30 is a $2000 and not jail time.
Why the hell did you think I was asking you this? So we could quibble about the amount? You care more about how much someone makes than their offense.
Why the hell did you think I was asking you this? So we could quibble about the amount? You care more about how much someone makes than their offense.
Look FM - you haven't a clue about me or what I think about wealth. I am interested in earning wealth and having those who achieve in life reaps the rewards in terms of gaining wealth. What I'm not interested in having situations where people with wealth can effectively operate above the law owing to their wealth. That is the sum total of my views on the financial side of this. You can state falsehoods about me all you like but they will only ever be your opinion. I'm not some 'pinko commy sickle-wielder'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So 200mph in a 30 is a $2000 and not jail time.
Why the hell did you think I was asking you this? So we could quibble about the amount? You care more about how much someone makes than their offense.
How you're even remotely getting that out of this conversation I'll never understand. The fine and punishment should obviously scale based on the severity.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So 200mph in a 30 is a $2000 and not jail time.
Why the hell did you think I was asking you this? So we could quibble about the amount? You care more about how much someone makes than their offense.
A minor traffic offense of ~10 mph over the limit would garner a 0.25% fine, a second offense to 0.5% and a reckless endangerment should end up at 1% or so and/or jail time. In each case, the punishment would be equal for the offender.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-12 13:40:16)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
No one is saying people with money should be able to operate above the law. There have been several solutions offered to the contrary.CameronPoe wrote:
Look FM - you haven't a clue about me or what I think about wealth. I am interested in earning wealth and having those who achieve in life reaps the rewards in terms of gaining wealth. What I'm not interested in having situations where people with wealth can effectively operate above the law owing to their wealth. That is the sum total of my views on the financial side of this. You can state falsehoods about me all you like but they will only ever be your opinion. I'm not some 'pinko commy sickle-wielder'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So 200mph in a 30 is a $2000 and not jail time.
Why the hell did you think I was asking you this? So we could quibble about the amount? You care more about how much someone makes than their offense.
I'm not calling you a communist. Just immoral and unjust.
By your code of morality and justice, which of course it is your prerogative to believe.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No one is saying people with money should be able to operate above the law. There have been several solutions offered to the contrary.
I'm not calling you a communist. Just immoral and unjust.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:42:39)
At the very least of course, but if that was all why would I be wasting my time?CameronPoe wrote:
By your code of morality and justice, which of course it is your prerogative to believe.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No one is saying people with money should be able to operate above the law. There have been several solutions offered to the contrary.
I'm not calling you a communist. Just immoral and unjust.
You haven't thought it through. About as well as you thought through "paper money" on the other thread. I know it, more importantly you know it, and that's all that matters to me.