According to a story in the Sunday Chicago Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/canal26.html, a Finnish dotcom millionaire was given a $110,000 speeding ticket for driving 44mph in a 25mph zone in Helsinki.* The article went on to state that:
The man had been stopped about a month before for dangerous driving, allegedly switching lanes too often and endangering other motorists but not speeding.
Finland has a policy of scaling traffic tickets to the income of the violator, with no cap on the amount of the fine.
The highest ticket up to now in Finland was $65,000 but that was for going 80mph on a gravel road(!) and colliding head-on with another car.
Does anyone else find this to be bizarrely unfair? Yes, he had a previous record, but the main reason the man was levied a fine in the six digits was because he has an income in the seven (or eight; the article didn’t say) figures. I certainly understand that speeding is illegal and must be punished, and 44mph in a 25mph zone is not excusable, but 110,000 IMHO isn't a reasonably proportional penalty for such a relatively minor offense. Unless this guy has an income in the nine figures (Gates and a few others aside, I don't think dotcom millionaires get THAT rich), then the "proportionality" of this fine must be to proportionately gouge every speeder, not just the rich ones or the ones who drive 70mph down narrow cobblestoned city streets like a spy in a bad movie.
*That's what the paper said. I know European countries use kph for speed limits and don't assess fines in US.
If the purpose of the fine is to act as a deterrent, then scaling it according to income would seem to be a good idea. A multi-millionaire is not going to be terribly deterred by a $20 or $30 fine, but might be by one of $100,000.
You could turn the question around and ask why a poorer person should pay a greater fine, expressed as a proportion of their income, than a richer person.
The guy himself is quoted as saying “Some people have called for a ceiling to traffic fines, but I’m not a lawmaker and am not so sure that a ceiling on fines would be purely positive.”
How dangerous, or serious, it is depends on a number of circumstances, not just the extent to which the speed limit was being exceeded. I suspect there is more to the story than that.
I personally could never understand why my well-off uncle could afford to park illegally on a regular basis (a $30.00 fine a couple of times a week didn’t really hurt him) but other people I know would have trouble feeding their kids because of the same ticket.
So to me a sliding scale makes sense. Non sliding scale fines essentially makes some people (those who the fine doesn’t represent a signifigantly importatant amount of money) above the law. And they peanalize others (who desperatly need that money) far too much.
It occurs to me that a system embracing scalable traffic fines indexed to income would make a legal specialty in motor law much more remunerative than it is presently; and, we already have attorneys who build their practices on such. Would that be a bad thing? I don’t know - just a thought.
If you were facing a possible $20,000 fine you might well spend $5,000 to beat it. Would that result in a situation wherein the well-off beat more traffic tickets, with their expenditures going not to the public coffers, but to attorneys instead?
beatle- in other countries one does not always have the ability to challange stuff in court. Even here in the USA, parking & traffic fines are usually held outside of a jury purview.
But at least our president is elected by the people, not by Supreme Court and the Evil Liberal Media. And we have nekkid women and bad words in our tv shows.
Luckily, that isn’t the case in Finland. Speeding tickets are rarely contested in court, people grumble (like drivers everywhere), but they do pay up.
I haven’t really followed this breathtaking exercise in stupidity, but I think $110,000 is the sum of two different tickets. And Rytsola is a shamless media whore and a whining asshole, so I don’t really care.
The $65,000 fine was for unauthorized rally practice, which ended in the crash. The happy-go-lucky rally amateur was Teemu Selanne of the Anaheim Donald Ducks… I mean the Mighty Ducks.
So to sum it up, most of the Finns think the prodigal son got what he deserved and the Big Goverment is happy too.
As Danielinthewolvesden said:
BTW, my highest (and only!) ticket for speeding was $300 for doing 85kph on 60kph zone. The cop could have suspended my licence, but since I was taking my brother back to the barrack AND I had a charming female companion with me (they were both drunk), he just gave me the fine.
The bill of rights includes the right to fixed speeding ticket prices?
Even if it was applicable in this case, it is worth noting that the rights provided in the Bill of Rights are highly flexible and seem to get redefined with each supreme court.
I wouldn’t count on a Bill of Rights protecting my speech even when printed on a t-shirt now that we have the DMCA anyway.
I agree with WildestBill on this one… (egads man, see what you’ve made me say! ;))
Why stop at tickets? Why not charge the man double or triple (and more) for the car he drives, the insurance he buys, the milk and bread he purchases at the grocery store, etc…?
Is his felony somehow more grievous because he is rich? What if a person on welfare broke the law and simply could not afford to pay the fine no matter how small? Should he be charged nothing?
Well, that’s the way we like it, no skin off my back if you don’t. Person’s wealth isn’t the measure of his worth around these parts. Call that “socialism” if you want, but I think we don’t really qualify.
I’m curious how you feel this applies to the case. I’m going to assume for the moment you refer to Amendment VIII:
How then is it determined to be an excessive fine. Considering that income tax, once you remove the complex network of rules, exemptions and other modifiers, boils down to a system of taxation based on a percentage of income, are criminal fines based on a similar system that egregious? If I pay a speeding ticket of $100, that’s approx. 5% of my monthly take-home-pay. A small value, it seems, but significant to me. Let’s say your monthly take-home-pay is around $10,000. A fine of $100 is only 1% of this, and not very significant. However, if slapped with a $500 fine, it might be more attention getting.
This adjusting scale seems to me an excellent way to balanace things amongst financial classes. And yes, I believe in equal contributions among all facets of society - not based on straight dollar amounts (allright, $5 from each of you), but based on total worth.
inkblot
Well then I’ll pose my question again. Why not charge the wealthy more for common, every day goods? More for food, more for gasoline, more for movie tickets.
I really think we should charge those rich bastards till they bleed! How dare they excell at their business and provide employment and boost the economy while the poor people are forced to sit around collecting welfare! I say it’s time for a revolution. Round up the bourgeoisie, line 'em up and have them shot. Oh, wait, that sounds vaguely familiar…
Look, I’m not looking to turn this thread into another communism vs capitalism debate. I’m just asking people to think a little farther than their nose and start realizing how crazy it is to base fines on a sliding scale.
Nope, but the punishment (the fine) is relative to your
income. If the fine was a standard amount, say $300, would this deter Mr Rytsola from speeding in the future?
Why this is such a complex principle to understand?
I must confess I have no idea how traffic tickets are issued in the USA, so I can’t compare the systems.
If the fine is big enough, he’ll go to jail. Or do community service, which is more probable.
It’s simple. Food, gasoline, and movie tickets are not meant to be a punitive deterrent (well, some movie tickets may be, but thats beside the point). If a small fine does nothing to deter a wealthy person from continuing their illegal behaviour, its not a very good deterrent is it? If you believe that sliding scale punishments are unfair, it sounds to me like you are saying the wealthy should be exempt from following the law, like the uncle who parks illegally every day because he can afford the fine.
By the way, this principle is used in the US, at least in civil cases. Punitive damages in such cases are indeed based partly on the ability of the defendant to pay, and the degree to which they would deter the defendant from doing the same thing again.
Because society has already placed a value on these goods. Or, to put it another way, we already do. Look at full service vs. self service gas lines. Home movie theatre systems. I can buy a movie ticket for $6, or rent the first run movie itself for several thousand. You don’t think private individuals have never done this? Sorry, I just haven’t seen Bill Gates down at my local 7-Eleven buying cheep beer lately.
Oh, wah. :rolleyes: They excell at their business, provide employment, etc., and this excuses them from stupidity? Is speeding less of a crime for them because they’re so successful in everything else they do? Because that’s how they see it. If the worst that ever happened to you when you broke a law was a nickel fine, in just how much regard would you hold that law?
Then convince me how crazy it is. I’m not advocating we punish them for being wealthy. I’m only advocating we make their choices carry the same weight as everyone else.
Inkblot
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mazirian *
Nope, but the punishment (the fine) is relative to your
income. If the fine was a standard amount, say $300, would this deter Mr Rytsola from speeding in the future?
[quote]
Granted, $300 dollars is not much to a wealthy person as far as fines go. But in North America there is also a point system which works to deter people from continuing to break laws while behind the wheel of an automobile. If Mr. Rytsola breaks the law a couple of more times, thus collecting enough points (ex. 9, three per incident) all kinds of nasty things will begin to happen to him. He may have his licence suspended. His insurance rates will go up dramatically or he may be refused insurance entirely. The courts may force him to attend driving school for a refresher course. He could do time in jail or community service if he continues to defy authorities. He could lose his license permanently.
I don’t find it complex to understand. I find it objectionable because it is discriminatory. If all people are equal in the eyes of the law then they ought to be treated/punished equally.
I don’t believe I’ve said any such thing. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve a hard enough time getting out my own ideas ;).
As for that scufflaw uncle. I say more power to him. If he thinks he can afford a $30 fine every day then I say let him pay it. I think he should be towed and fined if he parks in front of a fire hydrant or handycap parking spot, but if he simply lets the meter run out then I support his choice fully. His money is going towards a good cause. Most municipalities are glad to have that kind of income - especially if towing and higher fines are involved. It’s employment and additional tax revenue. If you or I cannot afford those kinds of fines then we ought to be more carefull to feed that meter.
