5 ms·

Which is bad.

• metalliqaz 7y ago
  For a billionaire, that's the same amount of bad as when I get a ticket for $60.
• mikepurvis 7y ago
  Why? Speeding kills. It seems reasonable to me that the ticket be proportional to your means, so you don't have a regressive effect where poor people are highly impacted and rich people laugh it off.
  • xfitm3 7y ago
    Speeding kills your pocketbook.
• behringer 7y ago
  Why? You know what happens to a rich Lambo owner when they owe the state 20 bucks? They hire their courier to speed to the post office at 60mph to deliver the check.
• throwaway5752 7y ago
  No it isn't. Handing a $100 fine to person X and person Y is ridiculous when person X makes minimal wage and person Y is a C level executive making $400K. Normalizing the fine to the median income and proportionate changing it by income level is equitable and fair. You can look for legal precedence in bail hearings, where wealth and flight risk are definitely and correctly taken into account.
  • appleiigs 7y ago
    Discriminating against race, age, gender is bad. You need to treat people fairly. However, when it comes to rich people you think it's OK?
    • grecy 7y ago
      We already do it with progressive taxes. Fines are just a type of tax, so why can't they be progressive too?
      • homonculus1 7y ago
        "We already do it" is not really an argument. Many people (rightly or wrongly) disagree with progressive taxation so it's really just an appeal to a non-existent consensus.
        • colejohnson66 7y ago
          “We already do it” absolutely is an argument. There’s a thing in law called precedent.
          • homonculus1 7y ago
            My impression was that this is a website for logical discussions, not legal appeals. "Fine the rich because they're globalist pedophiles" is also an argument of sorts but not to the standard I'm talking about.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    • Frondo 7y ago
      If fines are intended to be punitive, and intended to discourage people from committing crimes, then a person's wealth is the only thing it makes sense to base them on. Otherwise, wealthy people can flout fine-based laws with virtual impunity, while poor can't. That doesn't seem fair, that seems like justice for the poor, lawlessness for the rich.
      • knightofmars 7y ago
        "If fines are intended to be punitive..." Exactly! The _intent_ of the action is one of the most important aspects. If a group is disproportionately being penalized (the poor in this case) then the action (the fine) isn't actually fulfilling its intent (to prevent all who receive the fine from breaking the law). This is why "points" where introduced in numerous states to create a demerit point system. Even if a driver can afford 1,000 speeding tickets in a year they will lose their license after receiving a specific amount of demerit points.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)
  • dantheman 7y ago
    Bail hearings you get the money back when you show up. Bail is about not being stored in jail while you await your trial -- you are innocent at that point. They want to make sure you don't run away, and in fact many are beginning to push for lower bail requirements.
    • russnewcomer 7y ago
      In theory you get the money back. In practice, you have to borrow the money from a bail bondsman who has the cash on hand to post bail, and then pay him a percentage for his services. There are also jurisdictions which charge filing and handling fees on bail, which you never get back, which can be up to 10%. For 10k bond, which is pretty normal many places, that means 1000, just gone, not even accounting for the bond.
      • apacheCamel 7y ago
        This is all just so you can continue to live your life and not sit in jail while waiting for trial correct? That just seems wild to me. If you don't have the money, or can't get a loan, you probably lose your job due to being in jail, which now your entirely livelihood is at stake. It just seems so broken.
        • russnewcomer 7y ago
          Yes, you are essentially correct - it was a well-intentioned reform that has not been re-evaluated for current times, or it is judges who lack personal finance skills or realities to know that the bails they impose are not realistic for those who appear in their courts.
• coldtea 7y ago
  No, it's proportional, hence just.
• Faark 7y ago
  Depends on implementation. The one I'm familiar with asks for time (e.g. x * daily income). That seems totally fair, since we all have roughly the same amount of days to spend in a life. Jail & co is balanced based on the same principle, but harder to store & exchange, thus bad for minor infraction.