2007-09-10 02:49:18 · 13 answers · asked by ST 12 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
For minor offenses, all people have the option of performing community service instead of paying the fine. If a citizen is that impoverished, he should be able to fit community service in to his schedule.
I see where you are going with this. A 100 fine may mean for some that they will not have the money to fill a prescription or to buy groceries for the next couple of weeks. For some, that same fine may be just pocket change. However, instituting a sliding scale would cost more to develop and implement.
2007-09-10 03:03:02 · answer #1 · answered by love 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The rich don't pay as much for breaking a law as a poor person does. There are hundreds of studies that have been done on this very topic. In fact, in a course I took for my MS in Criminal Justice, called "Crime in the Life" mentioned this fact. The rich have more law available to them that the poor do not. Donald Black wrote "Behavior of the Law" in 1976 and in the last 32 years since that book was published it has become even more true today.
Money talks!
2007-09-10 10:01:37 · answer #2 · answered by Mary W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't normally -- except for on the spot fines for road traffic offences, antisocial behaviour, etc. The way in which the courts operate is to look into the means of the offender before imposing a fine in order in order to avoid the kind of inequality which you are suggesting. After all, a fine of, say, a hundred pounds might represent the loose change of a rich man (and not be much of a punishment at all) and be a lot of money to a poor man.
2007-09-10 10:03:20 · answer #3 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Justice is blind and does not know if the person is rich or poor. Would you have the rich pay more and the poor pay less? It would hardly be fair to the person who has worked hard to have to pay more than the person who decided to just coast.
2007-09-10 10:29:48 · answer #4 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which law? Rich law-breakers don't pay more in fines, but they do pay seven-figure legal bills, while the poor go straight to prison.
2007-09-10 10:01:43 · answer #5 · answered by BruceN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed With Both Guys Above!
2007-09-10 09:57:15 · answer #6 · answered by Incognito 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so ur next question is goona be -- why do rich people not go to jail -- but poor people do -- or maybe u'll drop the racial card -- ever see the statue of justice -- she's blindfolded -- so she cannot tell who, what or from where the individuals are -- justice is blind -- but the laws are for everybody; rich, poor or middle (aghast) class
2007-09-10 10:05:42 · answer #7 · answered by de viking 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the only fair way to do it. Unless you are thinking someone with more money should pay more to run a stop sign, then all the unemployed people could run stop signs at will because their is no fine to pay.
2007-09-10 10:03:03 · answer #8 · answered by dave0729 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a criminal matter, the income and net worth of the Defendant is irrelevant. No such information would be admissible as evidence.
In a civil matter, it sometimes is admissible to help determine the amount of punitive damages.
2007-09-10 09:58:17 · answer #9 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why shouldn't they? Anything else would be pretty crazy. There is no preferential treatment just because someone was too irresponsible to acquire an education and a good paying job.
2007-09-10 09:53:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋