When Fines are issued, should they not be issued on the basis of a percentage of the offenders income, rather than a flat amount. To someone with an income of £1000 per week, a £100 fine hurts but is just 10% of their income; but to someone who has an income of only £100 per week, the same fine absorbs ALL of their income and treats them worse than the person with the higher income.
Surely the current system applies less and less, the more income you have, and more and more, the less income you have.
The Government knows what everybodies income is from the Tax we all pay, so how about a minimum fine plus a percentage of income to make it fairer for EVERYONE! What do you think? Would it work? What could the extra money be used for?
2006-09-30 09:20:13 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
RJ; it's scary that you quote your source as 'police officer'! If fines are a flat rate the rich can do what they like without consequence, you think this is right? Regards your prison analogy, the older prisoner dies inside for his crime, the younger one eventually gets his life back! I am talking about MONEY affecting the punishment you recieve.
2006-10-01 10:23:40 · update #1
dh1977: A flat rate fine means that there is a minimum to pay for everybody, but everyone would be made to feel it equally, be punished equally.
2006-10-01 10:27:10 · update #2
The fine for should be the same to all people committing the same crime. Why would it be fair for you to pay a larger fine than I do (if you made more money), if the crime we committed is the same? I don’t understand your logic.
2006-10-08 06:15:34 · answer #1 · answered by 75160 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fines should be a flat rate. You know ahead of time that there will be a fine for breaking the law, so if you decide to do it anyway, that was your own decision. The fine is a punishment, not a negotiation. Period.
Transfer your line of thinking to the other punishment for crimes: prison time. If you have a guy who is 20 commit a robbery and he gets 20 years, he'll only be 40 when he gets out. But if a guy who is 50 gets the same sentence, he'll be 70. The old man doesn't have as much life left as the young man, do you think that just because of that, he should be given a lesser sentence for the same crime? Should we start basing prison sentences on a percentage of a person's life expectancy? The older you are, the less time in prison you get? No! That would just be stupid. And encourage older people to commit crime.
2006-09-30 11:05:44 · answer #2 · answered by RJ 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do agree with you on that one. A great exmple for this is parking fines. If Richard Branson decides to park his bentley in the middle of London right outside harrods, he will have earned more in the time saved from parking his car illegally than what the fine amounts to. Someone who earns 200 quid a week on the other hand who commits the same offencewill see at least 25% of his weekly wage disappear. This creates a system where the rich can just run amok .
The courts are supposed to take into account someones level of income when issuing fines but it is rare they are sufficient enough to have the same effects across the board.
2006-09-30 13:27:58 · answer #3 · answered by ligiersaredevilspawn 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on whether the fines system is for punishment or to discourage offences. Seems harsh to penalise a successful businessman more for the same offence than an unemployed person, but then again at least they'll think twice before doing it. It works ok in some scandinavian countries, so I think it'd do well in the UK. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.
2006-09-30 09:24:20 · answer #4 · answered by Andy R 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Everyone should recieve the same punishment for the same crime. That would be equality.
Also what about taxes? Some people have to pay more to use the roads and live in their country then others. Why should living in a free country cost one person any more or less that another?
2006-09-30 09:24:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A flat fee is the only thing that can work, too many people do not work and therefore they could never be subject to a penalty for infractions, unless you want to add jail time to the penalties. Drug dealers, for example have no reportable income and yet have plenty of money to pay fines.
2006-10-08 06:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the people who are saying equality are missing the point if a millionaire got a £500 fine it `s nothing to him if a single unemployed on £50 a week got it look at the impact it would make on his life even paying it off £10 a week it would take a year of either not eating or going without heat or electricity thats punishment putting one less bet on a horse or missing out on one posh meal out isn`t wheres the equality in that!!!
2006-10-07 00:13:01 · answer #7 · answered by keny 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you. A parking ticket fine (for example) to someone who earns £1000 per week is pocket money, to someone on minimum wage could mean the difference between eating or not eating. There quite rightly should be a base fine level, but then take into account the yearly income the family earns and means test it from there.
2006-09-30 09:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by nert 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Certainly some form of means testing for fines would be much fairer but would probably cost huge amounts of money to administer because of all the form filling, rebuttals, conniving, cheating etc. etc. that goes on. So we would probably have to have a whole new HUGE department somewhere to administer it.
But yes, in principle, I totally agree with what you are saying. And the money could be used as a form of compensation paid to the VICTIMS who normally get forgotten about.
2006-09-30 23:08:57 · answer #9 · answered by Sally J 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you can`t pay the fine, don`t commit the crime! Or maybe you could share your crime with a friend, and only pay half a fine?
Fines are punishment for wrongful behaviour. Don`t expect the authorities to be cosy and obliging with you,for something which you bring upon yourself!
2006-09-30 09:55:42 · answer #10 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋