5 ms·

Why should business units that are part of a large company be punished harder than those who are part of a small company? Do you also believe that people with h

by Hermel 11y ago

Why should business units that are part of a large company be punished harder than those who are part of a small company? Do you also believe that people with high life expectancy should stay longer in prison? A fine should be based on the damage done. The 1500$ per phone call in this case already seem excessive to me. What's the damage of getting distracted by an unwanted phone call? 2$? 10$? 15$?`Certainly not 1500$.

wpietri 11y ago
That is one way to do it, but not the only way. Scandinavia, for example, bases fines on income: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-... The theory here is that punishment is meant to change behavior, so the impact has to be proportional. > What's the damage of getting distracted by an unwanted phone call? Even on this theory, you have to scale the damages in relation to the odds of getting away with it. Suppose I run a store and steal a dollar from each customer. Let's say only 1 in 1000 notices and cares enough to talk to the police. Should my fine be $1, which is negligible? $1,000, so I break even? Or greater, so that there's an actual penalty?
- vacri 11y ago
  The public transport system in my hometown of Melbourne has a two-tiered fine system if you're caught travelling without a ticket. ~$75 if you pay on the spot (but you forfeit the right to contest in court) or $250 if you don't. They were actually losing a few court cases, so brought in the two-tiered system. I call it the 'fuck the poor' system, because poor people generally don't have the ability to pay $75 on demand. Paying $75 is a lot more convenient than having to find time and the know-how to contest things in court. For comparison, a day's travel costs ~$7.50. I'd heartily welcome an income-scaled penalty system, even though I am not poor myself. A fine that is crushing to poor people is a mere momentary inconvenience for wealthy people, which isn't the point of being penalised.
  - maccard 11y ago
    Or you could buy a ticket, like the rest of us do.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Frankly, that's a pissweak argument against significantly harsher penalties for poor people vs wealthy people. The transgression committed is the same, so the punitive impact should be the same. Instead we get a much reduced penalty for wealthy folks (both relative and absolute) - and the difference has zero to do with the nature of the transgression. This particular penalty is 25% of the full amount if you happen to be decently monied at the point of being fined - it's almost explicitly a 'poor tax'. Almost.
  - pvdebbe 11y ago
    Hmm... if you get caught more seldom than every 10 travel days, it would pay to keep $75 with you and never buy a ticket. And poor people do not have an excuse to steal anymore than the rich have.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > And poor people do not have an excuse to steal anymore than the rich have. Where did I suggest that? Poor person steals -> penalty $250. Rich person steals -> penalty $75 Same crime, lesser penalty simply for having money. It beggars belief how people continue to support this ridiculous favouritism of the well-off with "well, shouldn't be doing that anyway" handwave.
      - pvdebbe 11y ago
        I could be considered rich in the global scale and I hardly ever carry $75 in cash. And in contrast, are the poor physically unable to carry $75 with them in Australia?
- click170 11y ago
  If you harmed 1000 people by taking a dollar from each, to me you've robbed 1000 people. But, there has to be room for lenience in every law. Was it intentional, was it a computer error, did each person just forget to pickup their change on the counter before leaving? What is the cause? You better have a damn good explanation or if I was the investigating officer I'd book you.
- staticelf 11y ago
  I live in Sweden and while it bases fines on income, I've yet to see it being applied to a large company. I've never heard of any case like this in Sweden where a person gets a large sum for such a minor offense. Sure, if individuals do stuff to companies we can be harassed and prosecuted with incredible sums (look at the guys behind TPB) while companies often goes unpunished.
avinashv 11y ago
Whether I agree with the number or not is irrelevant, but the implication I get from the article is that the judge is more upset that after TWC was sued, they still made 74 calls. I assume that the per-call fine was upped because of that.
vacri 11y ago
The article states that the normal fine was tripled due to TWC effectively being in contempt of court. $500/call is reasonable, given that the situation has to be taken to court to be resolved - if you're already in the situation where the problem gets to court, a smaller fine is meaningless compared to the time a court case takes and the lawyers fees (and court costs, if you have to pay those). The point of punitive damages is to make it uneconomical to play 'court lottery'. At $2/call, it's not worth anyone's time to take a bad player to court, and the law becomes toothless.
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>A fine should be based on the damage done. That's one reason fines exist. The other reason is to act as a deterrent, and $229,000 is not much of one.
- whoisthemachine 11y ago
  Still, a lot to pay for just refusing to remove a number from your IVR system.
- Hermel 11y ago
  It quickly becomes a deterrent if there are many victims that feel inspired by this decision.
lmm 11y ago
> Why should business units that are part of a large company be punished harder than those who are part of a small company? Because large companies are bad for society? They're inherently anticompetitive and risk large societal impact when they fail (which in turn leads to the "too big to fail" problem).
mikeash 11y ago
If you or I did this, we'd probably be put in jail. An affordable fine is pretty minor by comparison. Why should TWC get better treatment than we would?

by Hermel 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

That is one way to do it, but not the only way. Scandinavia, for example, bases fines on income: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-... The theory here is that punishment is meant to change behavior, so the impact has to be proportional. > What's the damage of getting distracted by an unwanted phone call? Even on this theory, you have to scale the damages in relation to the odds of getting away with it. Suppose I run a store and steal a dollar from each customer. Let's say only 1 in 1000 notices and cares enough to talk to the police. Should my fine be $1, which is negligible? $1,000, so I break even? Or greater, so that there's an actual penalty?

vacri 11y ago
The public transport system in my hometown of Melbourne has a two-tiered fine system if you're caught travelling without a ticket. ~$75 if you pay on the spot (but you forfeit the right to contest in court) or $250 if you don't. They were actually losing a few court cases, so brought in the two-tiered system. I call it the 'fuck the poor' system, because poor people generally don't have the ability to pay $75 on demand. Paying $75 is a lot more convenient than having to find time and the know-how to contest things in court. For comparison, a day's travel costs ~$7.50. I'd heartily welcome an income-scaled penalty system, even though I am not poor myself. A fine that is crushing to poor people is a mere momentary inconvenience for wealthy people, which isn't the point of being penalised.
- maccard 11y ago
  Or you could buy a ticket, like the rest of us do.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Frankly, that's a pissweak argument against significantly harsher penalties for poor people vs wealthy people. The transgression committed is the same, so the punitive impact should be the same. Instead we get a much reduced penalty for wealthy folks (both relative and absolute) - and the difference has zero to do with the nature of the transgression. This particular penalty is 25% of the full amount if you happen to be decently monied at the point of being fined - it's almost explicitly a 'poor tax'. Almost.
- pvdebbe 11y ago
  Hmm... if you get caught more seldom than every 10 travel days, it would pay to keep $75 with you and never buy a ticket. And poor people do not have an excuse to steal anymore than the rich have.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > And poor people do not have an excuse to steal anymore than the rich have. Where did I suggest that? Poor person steals -> penalty $250. Rich person steals -> penalty $75 Same crime, lesser penalty simply for having money. It beggars belief how people continue to support this ridiculous favouritism of the well-off with "well, shouldn't be doing that anyway" handwave.
    - pvdebbe 11y ago
      I could be considered rich in the global scale and I hardly ever carry $75 in cash. And in contrast, are the poor physically unable to carry $75 with them in Australia?
click170 11y ago
If you harmed 1000 people by taking a dollar from each, to me you've robbed 1000 people. But, there has to be room for lenience in every law. Was it intentional, was it a computer error, did each person just forget to pickup their change on the counter before leaving? What is the cause? You better have a damn good explanation or if I was the investigating officer I'd book you.
staticelf 11y ago
I live in Sweden and while it bases fines on income, I've yet to see it being applied to a large company. I've never heard of any case like this in Sweden where a person gets a large sum for such a minor offense. Sure, if individuals do stuff to companies we can be harassed and prosecuted with incredible sums (look at the guys behind TPB) while companies often goes unpunished.

avinashv 11y ago

Whether I agree with the number or not is irrelevant, but the implication I get from the article is that the judge is more upset that after TWC was sued, they still made 74 calls. I assume that the per-call fine was upped because of that.

vacri 11y ago

The article states that the normal fine was tripled due to TWC effectively being in contempt of court. $500/call is reasonable, given that the situation has to be taken to court to be resolved - if you're already in the situation where the problem gets to court, a smaller fine is meaningless compared to the time a court case takes and the lawyers fees (and court costs, if you have to pay those). The point of punitive damages is to make it uneconomical to play 'court lottery'. At $2/call, it's not worth anyone's time to take a bad player to court, and the law becomes toothless.

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>A fine should be based on the damage done. That's one reason fines exist. The other reason is to act as a deterrent, and $229,000 is not much of one.

whoisthemachine 11y ago
Still, a lot to pay for just refusing to remove a number from your IVR system.
Hermel 11y ago
It quickly becomes a deterrent if there are many victims that feel inspired by this decision.

lmm 11y ago

> Why should business units that are part of a large company be punished harder than those who are part of a small company? Because large companies are bad for society? They're inherently anticompetitive and risk large societal impact when they fail (which in turn leads to the "too big to fail" problem).

mikeash 11y ago

If you or I did this, we'd probably be put in jail. An affordable fine is pretty minor by comparison. Why should TWC get better treatment than we would?