4 ms·

In Germany, Switzerland, and several other European jurisdictions, Bußgeld/Ordnungsbusse (fines) are distinguished from Geldstrafe (penalty? amercement?). Depe

• leetcrew 7y ago
  > I find that quite sensible. I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a fine is. personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. I don't think a speeding banker exposes society to any more risk than a speeding janitor.
  • jogjayr 7y ago
    > personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. Ok, but that's not actually what a fine is for. It's meant to be a deterrent against future offenses, both by the party it's levied against and for others.[1] 1. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html
    • leetcrew 7y ago
      > The purposes of imposing a criminal fine are to punish the offender, help compensate the state for the offense, and deter any future criminal acts. looks like the source you cited supports both perspectives.
      • jogjayr 7y ago
        So then you agree that the goals of "punish the offender" and "deter any future criminal acts" would not be served by having the same fine amount for everyone, regardless of means?
        • leetcrew 7y ago
          yes, but I personally don't think that's a good goal for a fine. generally speaking, there are two kinds of offenses: those that hurt people, and those that don't necessarily harm, but expose to excess risk. if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra. if you hurt someone seriously, some jail time might be in order. but I think excess risk is better handled through liability. there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. tbh, I don't actually support speeding tickets in the first place, at least not on the highway. people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat. I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.
          • jogjayr 7y ago
            > there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident? It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up. > if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth. > people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities. > I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc. I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space. 1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding