A penalty-ruling that I like

Skybird · 01-07-10, 08:10 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm

why I like this penalty of a quarter of a million for speeding?

Because I oppose the concept of fixed financial penalty fees, and this case here illustrates how it should be done instead: to base financial penalties on the wealth of the offender. when a low class factory worker with 800 bucks per month income gets caught for speeding, a penalty of 50 bucks is much. If a millionaire with a monthly income of 250.000 gets a fee of 50 bucks, it means nothing - maybe even amuses him and causes him to smile.

Instead i want a law code not saying "x dollars for an offence of y", but "x% of the offender's current wealth for an offence of y". In principle. One could also imagine that there are modifications in the formula, setting caps for the Bill Gates of this world, or increasing the percentage with growing wealth level. But you get the general idea.

the goal is a qualitative instead of a quantitative understanding of justice. If you have two offenders commiting the same crime or offence, they should be made to feel the same negative stimulus - the penalty - then. But this tolerance for a negative financial stimulus varies with the treshold of what the accused can financially afford. The subjective percpetion and economical status of both must be taken into account. A penalty only is a penalty if the offender experiences it as a penalty. If he does/can not, it is no penalty.

01-07-10, 08:10 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	A penalty-ruling that I like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm why I like this penalty of a quarter of a million for speeding? Because I oppose the concept of fixed financial penalty fees, and this case here illustrates how it should be done instead: to base financial penalties on the wealth of the offender. when a low class factory worker with 800 bucks per month income gets caught for speeding, a penalty of 50 bucks is much. If a millionaire with a monthly income of 250.000 gets a fee of 50 bucks, it means nothing - maybe even amuses him and causes him to smile. Instead i want a law code not saying "x dollars for an offence of y", but "x% of the offender's current wealth for an offence of y". In principle. One could also imagine that there are modifications in the formula, setting caps for the Bill Gates of this world, or increasing the percentage with growing wealth level. But you get the general idea. the goal is a qualitative instead of a quantitative understanding of justice. If you have two offenders commiting the same crime or offence, they should be made to feel the same negative stimulus - the penalty - then. But this tolerance for a negative financial stimulus varies with the treshold of what the accused can financially afford. The subjective percpetion and economical status of both must be taken into account. A penalty only is a penalty if the offender experiences it as a penalty. If he does/can not, it is no penalty. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.