4 ms·

Proof systems like this need wider adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Far too often these fines are sim

Proof systems like this need wider adaptation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Far too often these fines are simply considered "the cost of doing business". Worse, in many cases they agree to pay the fine without admitting guilt. It is almost like the government simply wants a cut of the action instead of discouraging it?

DLTADragonHawk 4y ago
I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?
- kennend3 4y ago
  > If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth? You did not read the link at all, correct? It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines". > It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people. If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again? Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear? The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke. Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      I still find the whole idea of "settling" for money instead of going to court and getting a guilty/innocent ruling troubling. This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system. Wealthy and get in trouble - "fines" Poor and get in trouble - court, potential jail time.
      - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        Totally fair, I was just replying to the notion that she'd made more from the scam then she paid in fines.
      - ensignavenger 4y ago
        > This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system. This is absolutely not true in the US. Poor people are very much encouraged to settle without going to trial. In fact, the vast majority of all cases are resolved that way. Poor people relying on public defenders tend to get pushed into settling more easily than wealthy folks, even. Indeed, it is the lack of public defenders that create a two-tier justice system more than anything in the US.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Fair punishment when it comes to fines should depend on the income. And maybe net wealth too excluding primary housing to certain median level of community. Does a same fine have same deterrent level for both sub-minimum wage worker and billionaire? As that is clearly the goal of the fines. I think they should. And likely the billionaire should pay much higher relative proportion than someone at minimum wage as they have so much more disposable income.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  A fair verdict and fair punishment can also be one that dissuades the behavior in the future. It can be both.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    It seems to me that the only point of punishment is to dissuade?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      Mostly, though it could be used to dissuade that person from repeat offense, AND/OR to dissuade others from committing that offense, AND/OR as a retribution for the act. An example of the 2nd one would be the death penalty, there is no 'corrective' behavior option for the person, cause they be dead. This is usually marketed as a deterrent for others, however studies have shown this rarely works. Most often severe punishments like death more appropriately fall under the 3rd case above.
Semaphor 4y ago
Tangent, but we recently had some rich guy drunk driving an e-scooter in Germany. The fine was extremely low because in most cases the court estimates how much a person makes without checking, and lowball it to ~1500€/month (it’s usually not worth researching how much someone makes and by lowballing it chances are the person won’t object). The case resulted in 30 day-fines, so 1500€. But this guy did object the judgement. Well, the objection was overruled, but by now the court had heard of who this was. The new day fine was 2,670€ resulting in a total fine of 80,100€ :D
- foobiekr 4y ago
  I wish the US would do fine scaling. By circumstance I know a significant t number of people worth $200M and up. All of them consider fines to be convenience fees.
happyopossum 4y ago
In the particular instance, the fine is 5x what she was paid to do endorsement, so I'd say we're in the right ballpark here...

DLTADragonHawk 4y ago

I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?

kennend3 4y ago
> If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth? You did not read the link at all, correct? It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines". > It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people. If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again? Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear? The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke. Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    I still find the whole idea of "settling" for money instead of going to court and getting a guilty/innocent ruling troubling. This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system. Wealthy and get in trouble - "fines" Poor and get in trouble - court, potential jail time.
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      Totally fair, I was just replying to the notion that she'd made more from the scam then she paid in fines.
    - ensignavenger 4y ago
      > This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system. This is absolutely not true in the US. Poor people are very much encouraged to settle without going to trial. In fact, the vast majority of all cases are resolved that way. Poor people relying on public defenders tend to get pushed into settling more easily than wealthy folks, even. Indeed, it is the lack of public defenders that create a two-tier justice system more than anything in the US.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Ekaros 4y ago
Fair punishment when it comes to fines should depend on the income. And maybe net wealth too excluding primary housing to certain median level of community. Does a same fine have same deterrent level for both sub-minimum wage worker and billionaire? As that is clearly the goal of the fines. I think they should. And likely the billionaire should pay much higher relative proportion than someone at minimum wage as they have so much more disposable income.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
A fair verdict and fair punishment can also be one that dissuades the behavior in the future. It can be both.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  It seems to me that the only point of punishment is to dissuade?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Mostly, though it could be used to dissuade that person from repeat offense, AND/OR to dissuade others from committing that offense, AND/OR as a retribution for the act. An example of the 2nd one would be the death penalty, there is no 'corrective' behavior option for the person, cause they be dead. This is usually marketed as a deterrent for others, however studies have shown this rarely works. Most often severe punishments like death more appropriately fall under the 3rd case above.

Semaphor 4y ago

Tangent, but we recently had some rich guy drunk driving an e-scooter in Germany. The fine was extremely low because in most cases the court estimates how much a person makes without checking, and lowball it to ~1500€/month (it’s usually not worth researching how much someone makes and by lowballing it chances are the person won’t object). The case resulted in 30 day-fines, so 1500€. But this guy did object the judgement. Well, the objection was overruled, but by now the court had heard of who this was. The new day fine was 2,670€ resulting in a total fine of 80,100€ :D

foobiekr 4y ago
I wish the US would do fine scaling. By circumstance I know a significant t number of people worth $200M and up. All of them consider fines to be convenience fees.

happyopossum 4y ago

In the particular instance, the fine is 5x what she was paid to do endorsement, so I'd say we're in the right ballpark here...