$110,000 speeding ticket!

Great Debates
21

I don’t think Bill got to be where he is by sitting around drinking cheap beer. I recall reading that he drank a lot of coca cola and ate tang from the package… but that my just be another UL.

As for consumer goods - People buy what they feel they can afford. I don’t understand what you are trying to argue here because I don’t see the connection between a person being able to install a $100,000 home threarter and the state practicing discriminatory traffic fines.

Unfortunately, there are plenty excuses for stupidity. We’ve got laws that protect people from their own stupidity. Fortunately, driving offenses are still taken very seriously. In addition to financial fines, there are more severe penalties which could lead to permanent loss of driving priviledges. I don’t believe that wealthy people remain immune to these. I’ve addressed this in a prior post so I won’t go into further detail.

We do. See above.

22

Kyberneticist said:

I don’t think SCOTUS would agree with you. We don’t punish other crimes proportionally. We don’t, for example, give women longer sentences than men for the same crimes simply because they, on average, live longer. That whole “equal protection of the laws” thing isn’t meant to be on a sliding scale. If it was, you could make all sorts of arguments like:

Smart people should do more time because they should know better than to commit crimes;
Rich people should serve less time because they “contribute more to society”;
Poor people should pay no fine because they can’t afford it;

And so on. As soon as you begin to determine punishments based on personal circumstances, rather than the circumstances of the crime, you’ve made a very dangerous leap. This is why the U.S. is looked at as a model of democratic principle (well, at least until this election): Equal protection of the laws is something that seems to be not very well understood elsewhere.

23

This was in response to your comments:

What I was trying to say is that we, as a society, have already set a value for these items. The value is directly attached to those goods, and follows it. So a wealthy person can pay more for better quality goods if they choose, and often do.

As for relating this to “discriminatory traffic fines,” please see below.

This is where I disagree. We have two methods for attributing value to an item. One is value based on the item’s intrinsic worth, and the other is value based on the owner’s intrinsic worth. Right now, we based common traffic fines on the first system, e.g. speeding carries a base fine with an extra $10 for each mile over the first ten (or whatever your local state and county decides).

Under the second method traffic fines are based on the person committing the offense. In this case, the monetary value to the offender can be scaled to have the same impact not on their pocketbook, but on them. So, the difference is you’re measuring the impact in money, I’m measuring the impact on the person.

I don’t feel this is discrimination at all. Again, we’re focusing on the intrinsic value of the person. If you can see that $100 carries different value between someone who makes under $1000 per month versus someone who makes $100,000 per month, I think you’ll see fixed traffic fines are discriminatory in charging different values to different people.

inkblot

24

Come on, we aren’t talking about murder, rape or arson here, it was a speeding ticket!

Not everyone looks up to the United States as a model for democracy (yeah, yeah, it’s a republic, I know). I do think there are quite a few good point we could learn from the U.S. system, but helluva lot we don’t want to import. The legal system for instance and campaign financing. O.J. trial, blow-job “scandals.” Those sort of things.

25

Agreed.

Yet punishment is based on how likely a person is to commit the same or similar crime again (i.e. danger to society, repeat offender, etc.).

So we have prisons of differeing levels of security, and deferred sentances with community service. Granted, inherent discrimination towards wealth is not written into any code of law I am aware of.

Instead, poor people are educated and trained to be more productive so they can afford to pay the debts.

But this is done every day. Outside of traffic violations, most crimes carry maximum and/or minimun sentances and fines. This is to allow a judge or jurry to modify punishment based on any number of extenuating circumstances. Overall, most punishments are made to preserve a person’s inherent value to society and our courts recognize that economic indicators are not directly related to this.

inkblot, gettin’ in over his po’ little head

26

mazirian said:

Well, “the legal system” and “campaign financing” are the bad sides of the good rights that we enjoy.

The way our campaigns are financed stems from the belief that people have to right to say what they want, associate with whom they want and support whom they want with their money. It comes from the belief that right to property is one of the more sacred rights we have. This is a right that a lot of Europeans find incomprehensible. Valuing the individual at the regular expense of society is something not much practiced outside the US.

The O.J. trial came partially from America’s worship of celebrity (we’re not alone in this; ask Britain’s royal family), partially from the unfettered access the American press has to all aspects of life, and partially from the voyeristic tencies of people everywhere. It wasn’t our greatest moment, but it once again demonstrated that even when things become unpleasant, we stand firmly behind our fundamental rights, like that of the press. Other countries could do worse than learn from this example.

I can’t say anything about President Clinton getting blowjobs. I think most intellectually honest Americans were pretty disgusted by the furor around that, too. But the main issue for those people wasn’t the blow job itself; it was the bald-faced lying to the public that pissed us off.

InkBlot, I’m not ignoring you. I just have to conjure up a response. :slight_smile:

27

As an attorney, I understand the concept of scaling fines and penalties to the income of the violator. I have no problem with the concept of punitive damages resulting in a higher sum of money being assessed against McDonald’s than against Joe’s Coffee Shack. The idea is to make the IMPACT on the violator the same whether he/she is rich, middle class, or poor.

My issue is more with the RATE of the fine in the Finnish system. If this guy was fined $110,000 for going 44mph in a 25mph zone and he makes (completely random guess) $11 million a year, that’s 1% of his income. Now I make $40,000 a year, and I’ve gotten tickets for going 44mph in a 25mph zone, but the ticket was for nowhere NEAR $400. It’s not that the fine was too high for the Finnish Bill Gates, it’s that the percentage fine seems too high for ANYONE getting caught at that speed. 19 mph over the speed limit, absent some dangerous condition like bad weather, isn’t that serious an offense, whether committed by prince or pauper.

Since we have a Finn on the board, maybe we can fill in some blanks in our knowledge:

  1. How much does this dotcom millionaire make in a year? Is $110,000 1% of his income? Half a percent? One tenth of a percent?
  2. What exactly IS the fine structure of the Finnish speeding law? What’s the percentage of income that speeders have to pay for a given excess speed? (Is there a site where the Finnish laws are on-line in English?)
28

Just a quick add in of my own $.02. This is already the case. Look at gas prices in say Sacramento vs San Jose.

29

This reminds me of something Drew Carey(sp?) says in his stand-up routine.

From memory:

I like to run stop signs when it’s raining. That way the cop has to get out of his car and stand in the rain to write a ticket. I make enough money; I can afford the fine. “Do you know why I stopped you?” “Yeah,…Do you know why I ran that stop sign?” What’s the good of having money if you can’t enjoy it?

30

So you are saying as long as the uncle pays the fine, he should be allowed to continue to park illegally? Please explain how that is different from saying that as long as he can afford to do so, he can break the law as much as he wants. It sounds to me like you are specifically saying that he does not have to obey this law, he just pays the fine (which is of no consequence to him). Are you really saying that people who can afford the fine should be allowed to illegally use handicapped spaces, regardless of how much it inconveniences an actual handicapped person?

31

Sorry John, I have a project which is due Friday, so I’m in a bit of a hurry, but I’ll try to answer your questions.

To break it down very roughly, for speeds that exeed the speed limit by 20kph or under, the fine is from $65 to $115.

If the speed exeeds the 20kph limit, you get “daily fines” which are 1/60 of your monthly income.

And I didn’t find any information on Finnish traffic laws in English, sorry.

Well, since the fine was (this time) roughly $83,000 according my sources and the daily fine was $4200, he got 20 of them. 60*$4200=$252000, his net month income in 1998 (the police still use -98 tax records). So the fine was 30% of this sum.

That’s all for tonight…

32

You know, it’s advisable to do some research before making sweeping generalizations like the following:

Let’s look at some of the provisions of the Constitution of Finland.

First of all, there is the fundamental commitment to the sovereignty of the people, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, including an independent judiciary:

Second, the Finnish Constitution is the supreme law, to be enforced by the courts through a form of judicial review:

Third, the Finnish Constitution does indeed entrench individual equality before the law, liberty, and rights of property:

Now, one may agree or disagree with the particular legislative policy behind the speeding ticket fines, but in light of SDMB’s commitment to fighting ignorace, assumptions of national superiority over other countries should not be accepted.

Western liberal democracies share a common ethos: we all value the rule of law and the priority of the individual over the state. Assumptions that only the US has those values, and only the US has a legal system which protects those values, is a blatant statement of ignorance. It insults and patronizes those of us who are proud of our own national traditions of liberty under the law and individual rights.

33

jti, IANAL. And I almost said that I had no idea what the laws of Finland were, and so none of my comments were directed at Finland specifically. But I didn’t. I should have.

But quoting the Constitution of Finland doesn’t do us much good. Any more than quoting the Fourth Amendment of the US would help Finlanders (I hope that’s right) understand the War on Drugs. Sure, the Constitution may say something in reasonably plain language that would seem perfectly obvious to you and me, but be interpreted in a wholly different matter by courts. It’s the difference between theory and practice.

For example, the aforementioned Amendment Four says:

That seems self-explanatory. How, then, do you explain no-knock raids? Or confiscation of property due to drug possession? Or the fact that you are basically completely vulnerable in your automobile? Of course, these things are valid, as laid down by the courts. Despite them being seemingly against the Constitution, SCOTUS says they’re OK. And what they say basically goes.

So, while Finland’s Constitution may say that everyone gets the same treatment under law, and the individual is more important than society, we don’t know for sure how they’re interpreting said document.

I am well aware that Western democracies (and assorted republicas and constitutional monarchies) are based upon the same set of assumptions; however, the implementation, I would submit, varies greatly from country to country. I’m not saying that the US is better, just that the way we interpret out basic set of assumptions is different, mostly, than elsewhere.

34

ahh, now we’re talking a common wavelength. It’s no longer that the US is the only one with these values and legal protections, it’s that you can’t fully understand the values in the system without detailed knowledge of how it works in practice. I completely agree with that approach, and certainly admit that my knowledge of the details of the Finnish Constitution is limited.

So, necros, in what ways do you think that the US interprets and applies the fundamental values differently than most elsewhere? in what ways do you think that equal protection of the laws is not understood well elsewhere? can you give me a clearer understanding of your underlying reasons?

35

I see nothing wrong with a sliding scale for fines. It’s not a service that is being sold, it is a punishment which is supposed to act as a deterrant. Income is already considered for punitive damages in civil cases, I don’t see why it shouldn’t matter with fines.

I’m not rich ($30,000 a year with about $30,000 in assorted bonuses) but I do break laws that I would not break when I was working for close to minimum wage. As an example, when there is a traffic jam I will drive in the HOV lane alone. I figure that a small risk of a $200 fine is worth not spending 30 minutes in 1st and 2nd gear. I NEVER drove in the HOV lane when I made less, a $200 fine meant living on a tight budget for a couple of months and/or borrowing money from my parents.

36

I think you should go back up and read my previos post again. The one you took the trouble to quote from but not actually read.

As for him incurring $30 fines. I still don’t see a problem unless he is endangering the lives of other by parking illegally. Parking fines would be much more severe if they endangered lives. Most of the time parking fines are simply another tool for municipalities to generate revenue which aids them in maintaining streets. They put up meters for that purpose. They hand out fines when meters expire for that purpose. Sometimes they even tow cars and charge heavy fines for that purpose. It’s a method of traffic control as well. If your uncle does not mind those fines and inconveniences then I see little reason to admonish him for failing to obey them and having to pay fines as a result.

Oh hell, I’ll save you the trouble of looking up my last post. I do not condone parking in front of hydrants and in handicaped parking spots when one is not entitled to do so. That is just plain wrong and the person’s car should be towed and a particularly heavy fine assessed. Infractions of that type should carry an impounding of the car for a certain period of time after several repeat offences of this type.

37

jti asked:

Sure. You can use examples from this thread:

mazarian said:

This seems to be a common perception among many civilized democracies. Infringement upon personal liberties, while again not condoned by national constitutions, as long as they are “minor” or “manageable” are no big deal. Is there some reason that we should uphold equal protection for rapes and murders but not speeding tickets? Of course not.

The major difference that I see between US implementation and others’ is this:

The US, from top to bottom, regards individual rights as “natural rights” and politicos are extremely leery of treading on those rights. Other countries (at least those of the European persuasion) also take their individual rights very seriously. However, they don’t take the rights to have the same broad sweep as those in the US. For example, the Nineth and Tenth Amendments are crucial to understanding American people’s affection for their rights. The US sees the Constitution more as an enumeration of rights to be protected by the government, as opposed to an enumeration of all the rights a citizen has, and that anything else goes.

I believe SCOTUS has been crucial to this. Depite conservatives’ disdain for “liberal activist judges,” these are the judges that further flesh out the vast extent of citizens’ rights. In other countries I see an attitude of “we have these rights, and no more.” In the US it’s an attitude of “We have these rights, but also lots of corollaries to these rights, and a bunch of other rights that we haven’t bothered to right down.”

I also find that a lot of European countries take the attitude that any infringement by other citizens on the rights of another is not to be allowed. In the US, infringement on others’ rights (to privacy, to peace and quiet, etc.) are routinely allowed to be violated if it is in service of a greater right. But in Europe, everyone’s small rights are sacrosanct. Soyou have travesties like France’s “Good Samaritan” law, which requires a person to help another in case of problems. That would never fly in the US of twenty years ago. It’s a case of more emphasis being placed on the protection of life in the “life, libery, and pursuit of happiness” than the emphasis being on the liberty, as it is in the US.

I admit that the US attitude has become more and more European as time goes by. This may be because of increasing pressures of a larger society, packed into a few areas. Or, it may be that the European idea is just better. I don’t think so, but it might be.

I probably haven’t presented this very well. The first part of your question, “the fundamental issues” part is where I probably should have placed my emphasis, instead of on the specific equal protection under law.

I would like to see a comparison between what Euopeans think of this sliding scale compared to Americans. My guess is you’d see much more favorable impressions from Europeans. They just seem to be used to having rights trampled on to make others feel safe, or better or whatever. Maybe it’s the result of more government interference in every facet of their lives, something the US is finally starting to have to come to grips with.

38

I owe you an apology, QuickSilver. I did partially misread or misunderstand your previous post. In fact, I’ll agree that a sliding scale fine for parking meters doesn’t make much sense. The fine in this case isn’t to deter you from parking there, its a penalty for failing to pay the original parking fee. Since even sven didn’t say where the uncle was parking illegally, I was thinking of this in general terms. I know of plenty of places where you can park illegally but your car will not be towed. The signs in those places usually don’t say why you can’t park there. I think if its not legal to park there, we can agree that any fine for parking there is meant as a deterrent?

As for the towing, usually a car is held until a fine is paid. The question remains, in such cases, whether a flat fine is as great a deterrent for someone to whom the fine amount is so small that it is beneath their notice.

In Medieval England, this was actually an option. Fines were made smaller or waived altogether if the person was too poor to pay. Of course, at the time improsonment was rare, or nonexistent in some places. The only penalties that existed, for the most part, were fines, banishments, and death. In these more enlightened times we would probably put the person in jail, for the crime of being too poor to pay the fine.