3 ms·

> What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. Why not? The damage is compensated in

> What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. Why not? The damage is compensated in absolute terms, the price is paid.

Aeolun 3y ago
Only if you want to normalize the behavior. Giving specific behavior a fixed monetary cost means rich people aren’t bound by the law.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  All fines give behaviour a fixed monetary value. Does that mean no-one is bound by law?
  - palata 3y ago
    You missed the point. Given monetary value does not mean no-one is bound by the law. It's if the monetary value is so low that it doesn't matter for the particular individual that suddenly, the individual is not bound by law anymore. Is it really that hard to understand?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's easy to understand; just not easy to agree with. The law's job is to enforce penalties and rights equally, blindly even, and not to scale everything according to someone's individual circumstance.
      - palata 3y ago
        Well your previous message suggested that it was not understood. Apparently it is, and you just disagree. Then we seem to differ on our view of "equal rights". To me, the law defines what should not be done ("is illegal"), and how one prevents people from doing it. Now if the law defines a fine that is high enough to prevent me from doing something illegal, but seen by a super-rich like I would see 1 cent, then we are not equal: the super-rich is effectively allowed to do it (as in, "nothing prevents him from doing it, because from his point of view he doesn't have to pay anything"), and I am not (because I can't afford it).
        golergka 3y ago
        It's not the law's function to adjust the punishment to subjective view of the punished. Otherwise, you could argue that heterosexual people deserve lighter prison sentences than bi- or homosexual, because sex 2ith the same sex is much easier to obtain in prisons and therefore prison time is harsher on heterosexuals. For the record, I think this example is absurd, and I'm just using it to highlight the kind of absurdity your logic leads to.
        palata 3y ago
        You take an absurd example, then arbitrarily decide that my logic leads to your absurd example, and therefore conclude that my logic is absurd? That's interesting :-). In case you care at all: I don't think my logic leads to your absurd example.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
There's a reason why fines scale with income in some places. If you were charged $5 every time you got caught speeding, I bet you'd be much more likely to speed. The fine has to serve as punishment, not just restitution.

Aeolun 3y ago

Only if you want to normalize the behavior. Giving specific behavior a fixed monetary cost means rich people aren’t bound by the law.

robertlagrant 3y ago
All fines give behaviour a fixed monetary value. Does that mean no-one is bound by law?
- palata 3y ago
  You missed the point. Given monetary value does not mean no-one is bound by the law. It's if the monetary value is so low that it doesn't matter for the particular individual that suddenly, the individual is not bound by law anymore. Is it really that hard to understand?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's easy to understand; just not easy to agree with. The law's job is to enforce penalties and rights equally, blindly even, and not to scale everything according to someone's individual circumstance.
    - palata 3y ago
      Well your previous message suggested that it was not understood. Apparently it is, and you just disagree. Then we seem to differ on our view of "equal rights". To me, the law defines what should not be done ("is illegal"), and how one prevents people from doing it. Now if the law defines a fine that is high enough to prevent me from doing something illegal, but seen by a super-rich like I would see 1 cent, then we are not equal: the super-rich is effectively allowed to do it (as in, "nothing prevents him from doing it, because from his point of view he doesn't have to pay anything"), and I am not (because I can't afford it).
      - golergka 3y ago
        It's not the law's function to adjust the punishment to subjective view of the punished. Otherwise, you could argue that heterosexual people deserve lighter prison sentences than bi- or homosexual, because sex 2ith the same sex is much easier to obtain in prisons and therefore prison time is harsher on heterosexuals. For the record, I think this example is absurd, and I'm just using it to highlight the kind of absurdity your logic leads to.
        palata 3y ago
        You take an absurd example, then arbitrarily decide that my logic leads to your absurd example, and therefore conclude that my logic is absurd? That's interesting :-). In case you care at all: I don't think my logic leads to your absurd example.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

There's a reason why fines scale with income in some places. If you were charged $5 every time you got caught speeding, I bet you'd be much more likely to speed. The fine has to serve as punishment, not just restitution.