2007-09-10 23:46:55 · 6 answers · asked by ST 12 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I disagree - a lesser fine indicates a lesser crime.
2007-09-10 23:53:23 · answer #1 · answered by bonshui 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that for a first time violation it is perfectly acceptable. For a second or third time the judge should have the leeway to impose a stiffer fine to impress upon a scoff law the need to conform their behavior to the standards set by the rule of law in the country including jail time which effects people of all economic levels in a similar manner.
2007-09-11 06:57:52 · answer #2 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Poor often can get their fines waived. Or they end up doing community service instead.
Funny thing is, often times judges won't give the rich the option of a fine, since they know that it isn't really a punishment for them. They make the rich do community service instead.
2007-09-11 06:53:04 · answer #3 · answered by SDW 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well people know if they break a rule they pay the consequences fair or unjust rich or poor a rule is a rule unless you want to speak your mind and try to change the rule good luck with that one...
2007-09-11 06:54:22 · answer #4 · answered by htpanther 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know what you're saying. 10% from a rich person wouldn't hurt them as much as 10% from a poor person.
Who hurts more!
2007-09-11 07:22:28 · answer #5 · answered by Jed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who is given more will be answerable for more. I most cases the rich avoid punishment at all with help of bribes. They pay the bandits ( racketeers ) and we are accustomed to it as so it must be.
2007-09-11 07:17:29 · answer #6 · answered by georsh50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋