A penalty-ruling that I like

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

One problem that can come into play here is that some people are very good at hiding their assets, and other people (at the lower end of the scale) simply do not have enough assets to justify the cost of determining their worth.

And yet another problem could very well be selective ticketing, based on the value of the vehicle.

What happens with an owner/operator trucker who has almost everything invested in his sole source of income (the truck), and very little in reserve?

He better does not speed regularly.

Anyway, you bypass the basic argument I made, Snestorm. I am about making the sanctions imposed on an offender (not only traffic offences, btw) having the same subjective aversive stimulus for a rich and a poor.

We also often see the rich (I just say: banksters, but also many others) massively abusing their position to fill their pockets without shame, and putting immense moneys at risk as long as these moneys are not theirs. If we allow the actors as well as the rule-makers to avoid any negative consequences of their deeds and decisions, and only the others having to face them, than this means to increase the pürobability that such people indeed will brake the rules. If you want to decrease the probability of these people doing wrong acts and making bad decisions for egoistic motives, you have to make sure that they will be unable to avoid the ngative conseqeunces all others have to face.

What we have now is a system that means: the richer you are, the more space you have to outmaneuver the law. This cannot be what is meant by "to the law everybody is equal". We are not.