guyser Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 If there's no record of income is there still a fine? Community service is a much better idea, imo. Too much focus on revenue generation is a dangerous thing.There are minimums. So yes, there is still a fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 There are minimums. So yes, there is still a fine. Any idea what would happen if the finee (?) didn't have the resource or ability to pay? Are debtor prisons still a thing? Maybe I have it backwards (not a rarity) but I always assume the creator of a debt is the one who owes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/02/20/tough_on_poverty_tough_on_crime.html poor people are already disportionately found in the jail system. Having a fine law based on income would only encourage more poor people to break rulesThe cost benefit of a crime commited amounting to $100,000 by wealthy dude is more that attractive to a poor person doing the same crime for $50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/02/20/tough_on_poverty_tough_on_crime.html poor people are already disportionately found in the jail system. Having a fine law based on income would only encourage more poor people to break rules The cost benefit of a crime commited amounting to $100,000 by wealthy dude is more that attractive to a poor person doing the same crime for $50. How would that work? The idea is to make a fine hurt you no matter what you make. If you make $250,000 a year being fined $200 is not the same punishment as if you were making $25000 a year. It is meant as deterrence plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) It is meant as deterrence plain and simple. You may be hard pressed to find conclusive evidence showing that fines are a reliable deterrent to either criminal or non-criminal activity. It would raise more revenue for the state, definitely, but to what end? How would things improve? Edited March 15, 2015 by LesActive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 You may be hard pressed to find conclusive evidence showing that fines are a reliable deterrent to either criminal or non-criminal activity. It would raise more revenue for the state, definitely, but to what end? How would things improve? For me a $200 fine is a deterrent, even though I don't live pay check to pay check that much money stings and therefore it deters me from committing the act that would bring about the fine. Fines based on income make sense because people start thinking of the fines as actual money as opposed to pocket change. We are talking about fines that are based around real money and by that I mean $200 is a deter ant for me because it is significant sum but for someone else $2000 might be a deter ant while $200 might be pocket change. Some feel it a lot while others not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 For me a $200 fine is a deterrent, even though I don't live pay check to pay check that much money stings and therefore it deters me from committing the act that would bring about the fine. Fines based on income make sense because people start thinking of the fines as actual money as opposed to pocket change. We are talking about fines that are based around real money and by that I mean $200 is a deter ant for me because it is significant sum but for someone else $2000 might be a deter ant while $200 might be pocket change. Some feel it a lot while others not at all. The poorer ones would still feel it more. Imo, the risk of negative social stigmatism, say in media and/or the offenders social circle, would be far more effective than the levying of fines, especially to those of a higher social status. If, however, the breach involves money then as money was the desired outcome of the crime it should cost them in those same terms. I'm not suggesting an eye for an eye philosophy, I think we can be much more creative than that, but making every crime a commercial one will always be most unfair to the poor. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France I've always liked that quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 The poorer ones would still feel it more. Imo, the risk of negative social stigmatism, say in media and/or the offenders social circle, would be far more effective than the levying of fines, especially to those of a higher social status. If, however, the breach involves money then as money was the desired outcome of the crime it should cost them in those same terms. I'm not suggesting an eye for an eye philosophy, I think we can be much more creative than that, but making every crime a commercial one will always be most unfair to the poor. I've always liked that quote. How would it be unfair to the poor? It essentially levels the fines. This makes it fair because a fine that has a severe impact on me does not have the same impact on someone making 5 times or 10 times my income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) How would that work? The idea is to make a fine hurt you no matter what you make. If you make $250,000 a year being fined $200 is not the same punishment as if you were making $25000 a year. It is meant as deterrence plain and simple. Basic economics, attractiveness of the fine and irrational human behaviour Example people would purchase on sale 200 per bottle pills for $12, whereas 100 per bottle is $5 (see works by Kahneman, Nobel, economics winner) Edited March 16, 2015 by RB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 How would it be unfair to the poor? It essentially levels the fines. This makes it fair because a fine that has a severe impact on me does not have the same impact on someone making 5 times or 10 times my income. 'Fair' is a relative term in this instance. It implies a levelling of penalties but doesn't take into account the fact that in some cases that $50 fine is one to two weeks worth of low quality food. The wealthy are unlikely to experience that kind of desperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Any idea what would happen if the finee (?) didn't have the resource or ability to pay? Are debtor prisons still a thing? No debtors prisons do not exist. And the same happens to a poor person here. They pay in in installments or some other arrangement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 'Fair' is a relative term in this instance. It implies a levelling of penalties but doesn't take into account the fact that in some cases that $50 fine is one to two weeks worth of low quality food. The wealthy are unlikely to experience that kind of desperation. So because poor people struggle, fines shouldn't be increased on wealthy people? Your premise makes no sense. And we are talking about traffic fines... which means that one has a car and insurance for that car. So if they are having trouble scraping together $50 for "poor quality food", then they probably won't have a car or be able to pay for the insurance and maintenance for that car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 And we are talking about traffic fines...Actually in Finland it is used for some criminal activity. Minor crimes mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Basic economics, attractiveness of the fine and irrational human behaviour Example people would purchase on sale 200 per bottle pills for $12, whereas 100 per bottle is $5 (see works by Kahneman, Nobel, economics winner) Basic economics is that if some infraction that is normally dealt with through a fine is applied to two different people with two different incomes one will be hurt more than the other. For example, giving me a $200 ticket for whatever it is will hurt me and make me think twice about my actions, its not enough to seriously hurt my finances but it will hurt whereas the same fine is applied to someone who makes 5 times what I make and it loses its punch. Basically the punishment for the infection is tailored for the person who committed the infection and their resources. Just because someone who makes 5 times my income will be punished proportionally for their infraction will not make me go out and commit the infection since I will get a fine that hurts me based on my individual situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 So because poor people struggle, fines shouldn't be increased on wealthy people? Your premise makes no sense. And we are talking about traffic fines... which means that one has a car and insurance for that car. So if they are having trouble scraping together $50 for "poor quality food", then they probably won't have a car or be able to pay for the insurance and maintenance for that car. To your first point: fine the wealthy, make it hurt. IMO, an alternative to fines on the poor would be more equitable. The wealthy have the money to spare while to the driving poor, the spare is in the trunk. Some folks require a car to get to work and yet are still below the poverty line. When I see initiatives like this it just seems that it's another way for more revenue generation made to appear more fair, even though it's still harder on some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 'Fair' is a relative term in this instance. It implies a levelling of penalties but doesn't take into account the fact that in some cases that $50 fine is one to two weeks worth of low quality food. The wealthy are unlikely to experience that kind of desperation. Yes understood, but at the end of the day we are trying to increase the penalties so that everyone who commits an infraction knows that they were punished rather than make it truly fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Actually in Finland it is used for some criminal activity. Minor crimes mind you. I'm sure that ability to pay is already taken into account by judges here... at least for minor crimes. It's the fixed fines that makes sense to adjust based on income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Yes understood, but at the end of the day we are trying to increase the penalties so that everyone who commits an infraction knows that they were punished rather than make it truly fair. Yeah, I get it. I just think that there is more than one way to 'punish' people. Focusing on money is myopic and easy and doesn't necessarily deter the action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Yeah, I get it. I just think that there is more than one way to 'punish' people. Focusing on money is myopic and easy and doesn't necessarily deter the action. it does if the fine corresponds with the resources of the individual in question. Are there any other answers or solutions? Yes, most definitely but at the end of the day a fine that corresponds to the individuals resources is much better than one that is geared towards a one size fits all solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Yeah, I get it. I just think that there is more than one way to 'punish' people. Focusing on money is myopic and easy and doesn't necessarily deter the action.IN the event of traffic tickets, it is but one part of the process. You get a ticket, pay the fine. Get a few more...pay as well. Then the insurance company runs a report and charges you more, or cancels you . Then you pay again! Take drunk driving. The ticket is hefty. The suspension is even heftier. The cost for cabs, friends to drive you is even more ! And then...............you have to find insurance. Now youre going to pay big time and for a good five years after. That $50 cab ride is the dumbest one many have ever denied themselves. Go ahead, spend $20,000 instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesActive Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) IN the event of traffic tickets, it is but one part of the process. You get a ticket, pay the fine. Get a few more...pay as well. Then the insurance company runs a report and charges you more, or cancels you . Then you pay again! Take drunk driving. The ticket is hefty. The suspension is even heftier. The cost for cabs, friends to drive you is even more ! And then...............you have to find insurance. Now youre going to pay big time and for a good five years after. That $50 cab ride is the dumbest one many have ever denied themselves. Go ahead, spend $20,000 instead. oh man, don't get me started on the scam (as I see it) that is insurance. Repeat offenders, especially drunks, should bear the burden of their irresponsibilities; be it fines for those who can afford it, suspension for those who don't require a license for their livelihood or something else that gets the point across that they've breached the drivers contract but which doesn't put them in a compromising position. There are many more possible variables that could be utilized which would be dependent upon the situation. I think we could allow the judges a lot more wiggle room than just varying the amount of the fine as they propose. As it is, it's a start, but that's all. Edited March 17, 2015 by LesActive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 oh man, don't get me started on the scam (as I see it) that is insurance.Ok Repeat offenders, especially drunks, should bear the burden of their irresponsibilities; be it fines for those who can afford it, suspension for those who don't require a license for their livelihood or something else that gets the point across that they've breached the drivers contract but which doesn't put them in a compromising position.I have no idea why you think they do not bear the burden of their actions, repeat drunk drivers pay a fortune for insurance, have heavy restrictions put on them, their spouses/children pay a hefty premium for the actions as well. It is very expensive should they blow more than .08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Not in Edmonton or St Albert. The photo radar is not fixed in one place, as it often is in Europe. There are photo radar cameras on pedestals all over the UK. In Alberta the mobile vehicles with phot radar could be anywhere, though they tend to cluster in areas where they generate the most tickets. According to the chief of police, the purpose of photo radar is to slow down traffic. And also according to him , it works: they issue fewer tickets now than several years ago. A greater deterrent than fines, for many people, is the accumulation of demerits and eventual loss of drivers licence. You don't get demerits on photo radar because the driver cannot be identified. I see signs all over Alberta of this type. Granted, that one's from Winnipeg, but it's the most similar one I could find. Edited March 17, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 OkI have no idea why you think they do not bear the burden of their actions, repeat drunk drivers pay a fortune for insurance, have heavy restrictions put on them, their spouses/children pay a hefty premium for the actions as well.It is very expensive should they blow more than .08 Unfortunately, losing their licence and not being able to get insurance doesn't stop the truly commited drunks from driving. They just drive anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately, losing their licence and not being able to get insurance doesn't stop the truly commited drunks from driving. They just drive anyway.Yes they do , and that is a major problem, however , most of those repeat offenders do face jail time, so in essence they serve some of their debt to society , however they skirt the other part, that being the court order to not drive. And theres one fo the reasons we pay Uninsured Motorist Insurance. It truky is amazing what some idiots do. If convicted, you cannot drive....period. Now can you borrow a car legally, nor can you drive your spouses car, basically you cannot be behind the wheel if under the suspension, nor if the car does not have the breathalyzer lock. I have an aquiantance who asked me about this. She and the dumb dumb hubby (convicted of impaired) wanted to drive to florida, so I looked into it. She though perhaps once State side he could take the wheel for a spell. Turns out , not at all, and if pulled over, his licence would show that he cannot drive her car and he will be arrested by the US LEO. (if he makes it into the States to begin with) All sorts of issues come from impaired. Edited March 18, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.