Shouldn't fines for committing a crime be adjusted by income?

Question

I mean, if it's a maximum $500 fine for smoking in a public place; then technically a millionaire could do it all the time and not care.

Can't they see how much $500 is per an average income and find a percentage to use.

Maybe something like "$200 or 2.5%" so that way poor people could still get fined.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

Administratively this idea would never work. How do you prove how much someone makes? What kind of income do you count? What about a retiree with no income but a high net worth? What about a wife who makes no income but the husband makes a large income? What about a child who makes no income but he parents make high income?

I suspect you haven't taken the time to think about how to enforce your idea.

Answer 2

The only way that your income comes into play with the law is your bail amount. That is why we see like one million dollar bails for people who are in the middle class income in taxes and for the same crime on a lower income bracket its going to be some around 200 grand or something. We see stuff like that all the time and i understand how come we don't do this for normal fines for smoking laws or speeding tickets and some judges do take notice in the amount you pay if say you show up to court and show last years taxes and say I cant pay a fine so big and most judges will say there is a payment plan here.

So its all a Catch 22 no matter what way you look at fines and bails. I think they should be set for that persons tax bracket.

Answer 3

That loine of reasoning makes no sense. By your logic people who are poor should be even more motivated to not commit a crime since they would be unable to afford the fines.

Secondly, how would one go about proving they cannot afford the fine. If that were the case veryobdy who committed a crime would argue poverty.

There is a saying that goes, if you cannot do the time, don't do the crime, the same logic follows if one cannot afford the fine. Or in an effort to be fair we can put them in jail for a few days.

Answer 4

I may be wrong, but that would be a double standard then. A fine is established for offending in an area. In Ohio, at least, if you go to court and are found guilty with a hefty fine, under MOST circumstances, you can work out a repayment plan. The courts will consider the income of the individual and try to work with them. I hope this helps you.

Answer 5

It wouldn't be just for people who commit the same crime to be punished differently. We don't do it that way in America, although if a person is unable to pay a fine, sometimes the judge will allow them to do community service instead, and if you commit the same offense multiple number of times, the fine/penalty can be increased.

Answer 6

I agree with this to an extent, I believe that fines for say a DUI should be like 10 times the amount that they already are for millinaires, yes, because realistically, how much fines really perhaps should be done away with as they do allow for discrimination and allow the rich to do pretty much whatever they want.

Answer 7

Sounds like something out of "Monopoly." I think justice would be better served if the fines were kept the same, but trial by jury were preserved instead of a cop arbitrarily handing out tickets that assume guilt.

Answer 8

No...because then people with no income could do more evil.