Well, I already know the answer to that: they can’t be. If we lived in a country that penalized people differently like they tax them based on income, I’d move.
But you get what I mean. A $70 ticket and $70 court fines, plus higher insurance rates and the potential of wrecking our vehicles may be great incentive for us regular folk to not break traffic laws, but why should the rich not drive how they want to? I was reading about Jack Whittaker recently, who won 113 million in the lottery, and how he wasn’t afraid of drunk driving charges b/c he can tell everyone to screw off.
James Dean got a ticket right before he lost his head. NO INCENTIVE. :rolleyes:
I think they have fines based on income in Finland (or is it Sweden?). I remember reading a few years ago about how a cell phone executive was speeding and got a $70,000 fine. When I applauded the country for using their brains in determining penalties for violations, I was accused by members of a certain web portal of being an “anti-capitalist” who wanted to “punish people for being enterprising and hardworking.”
Not so; a $100 fine for doing something that may kill people is a slap on the wrist for a guy making $1 million/year, but it’s a big deal to someone making $20,000. Who is more likely to curb their reckless behavior? It seems to me to only make sense to level the playing field in punishing people for dangerous activities.
Fines are not meant as a deterrant. Fines are a revenue stream. If you suddenly decide to switch over to proportional citation system, like the one in Finland, you will suddenly find that you just pissed off a lot of rich and powerful people. Do you want to be that guy?
A better question would be as to why do the fines go to the government in the first place? That’s a conflict of interest. I believe if you insist on fining people, at least all the money has to go to private charities.
Er, I apologize for my forthrightness, but surely you haven’t thought this through. Sure, fines are a method of collecting money for a city, but it’s not the only function. Fines, like any form of punishment are an attempt to curb certain types of behavior. Why do people fear the time running out on their parking meters? Because they’ll get fined! Cities institute the time limit to ensure some level of fairness in parking to the many motorists on city streets. Yes, the cities rely on the fact that not everyone is going to comply to gain revenue for the city, but it doesn’t mean that the fine was only instituted to collect money.
I think you will have a hard time justifying your statement.
Well, I didn’t make myself very clear. I did not intend to say that fines do not act as a deterrant, or that they weren’t originally intended as such. I intended to say that fines are no longer treated as a deterrant by those who levy them, but rather as just a revenue stream.
Why should they be pissed off? If they don’t violate laws and/or endanger lives, they have no need to be worried. I personally would limit the proportation fine system to serious and dangerous offenses like drunk driving, reckless endangerment, etc.
How is it a conflict of interest? Cities are the logical place for the fines to go; city governments are the custodians of the places where the fines are handed out. The fines, in turn, go back into the system to maintain order and organization.
What’s your point? The intention of lawmakers is one thing, but the net result is the same: fines still deter traffic violations, and the more you make people feel the pinch from the fine, the less likely they are to commit the same mistake again. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a hard-on for draconian punishment at all; I just think that this makes sense. Most people seem to not give a damn about their actions unless they themselves are personally affected by them-- and unfortunately, making them feel it financially seems to be one of the best (and most humane) attention getters available.
It singles them out for no other reason than being affluent. Under the same line of thinking, taxing people to support universities would be on a sliding scale based on the number of books you own and the number of kids you have.
It’s a conflict of interest because the same jurisdiction issuing the fine and benefiting financial is the one that makes the law and sets the fine amount.
Well, that’s true. Fines deter traffic violations. Which is not the same as “fines promote safety”. If suddenly right turns on red were made illegal in your jurisdiction (with a $200 fine) and the lawmakers cited some study stating it promotes safety. You would get used to it soon enough, and right turns on red will seem dangerous, because they are illegal. Yes, the fine will deter people from violating the law, but it probably does nothing for safety, regardless of what the government wants you to believe. The same with speeding, rolling through stop signs, etc. It’s just been ingrained for such a long time that the behaviors are unsafe that we don’t question it.
Sweden does have a proprtional system for some types of offenses/crimes.
The normal fine for traffic citations like parking violations, speeding, running a red light etc is not income dependent.
The proportional fines are for more serious offenses and are called dagsböter (daily fine?). The number of “days” depends on the crime and the amount you pay per day depends on your income (there are deductions if you for example have dependents). The “days” go from 30 to a maximum of 150 and the amount goes from SEK 30 to 1000 (~$5 to ~140). So the maximum someone would have to pay is about $20 000.
The fine is calculated based on the income before taxes. A deduction of $2000 per dependent child and the same for a dependent partner. The amount per day is then 1/1000 of the income after any dedcutions.
I’m interested to hear an elaboration on this. Speeding supposedly causes the highest percentage of car fatalities in the US a year at 14%; I was once hit only minorly while on bike by a car that rolled past a stop sign as all cars do (b/c you have to to, you know, to see the traffic and make your turn! )
OK, I scanned through the previous thread and the constitutional question was asked but not really answered. Would a scheme of fines varying by income level of the offender be constitutional? My gut instinct is that it would be a violation of equal protection but I don’t really know.
I think that’s what police officers list as default cause, because again, it helps tighten speeding laws and increase fines, etc.
Here’s some anecdotal evidence (i’d be interested to see some studies on this):
My stepdad couldn’t decide whether to turn off or stay on the high way, and plowed into a parked bus at roughly 7 mph. He had plenty of time to stop, he just chose not to. Before that he was driving 15-20 mph UNDER the speed limit looking for his turn off. Actual cause: indecision. Listed cause on the police report: Unsafe speed.
A friend of mine went through a two-way stop sign, and a minivan didn’t stop and totaled his car. Actual cause: ran a stop sign Listed cause on the police report: Unsafe speed
I was driving downtown in stop-n-go traffic. The person behind me, as she later admitted, was talking on her cell phone. I stopped at a red light, she didn’t notice it, and plowed right into me. Actual cause: inattentiveness. Listed cause on the police report: Unsafe speed.
A friend was driving on a mountainous highway with a middle divider, hit an unexpected wet patch of pavement, slid right into the divider. Actual cause: Probably unsafe speed, loss of traction Police report cause: Unsafe speed.
(the most ridiculous) 5) My mother was at a red light at a rail-road crossing + intersection. The person in front of her realized they were on the tracks and the train was coming, and backed up, my mom backed up to give them room and left the car in reverse. When the light turned green, she reversed right into the person behind her. Actual cause: a stupid mistake, inattentiveness. Police cause: Unsafe speed???
So, maybe I’m just unlucky and anecdotal evidence is just that, but it’s always been my impression that 14% was very very low since “unsafe speed” seems to be the default option for when it’s not DUI, non-red-light, non-merged-into-you kind of accident.
Hmmm… I still am not going to start speeding any time soon.
From the other thread, here are the summary points:
[ul]
[li]It’d be hard to make the equation for the fine- “e.g. the distinction between income and wealth, the issues that arise when a family has partially shared resources and control”, but this is how Finland does it.[/li]
[li]WE’RE NOT COMMUNIST- “All of you that “think” fines should be based according to one’s income are abandoning the American system of justice for one that could easily be designed by Karl Marx, with his “from each according to his abilities” philosophy. See, the American justice system is represented by Lady Justice, who is blindfolded and holding the balanced scales of equal justice. When irrelevancies, such as one’s income, are taken into consideration by the justice system, Lady Justice is peeking out from underneath her blindfold and the scales are no longer balanced.”[/li]
[li]Are the rich a big factor in traffic deaths/inconveniences?- Posters point out sidewalk parking in san francisco and that in LA rich drivers routinely break traffic laws[/li]
[li]Police bribery- “Do most people doing to prison for things a street cop would arrest them for have millions of dollars to bribe them even if they wanted to? The fact that an infraction (speeding) most people consider harmless could warrant a 100k ticket creates a fertile environment for bribery. I repeat, there are very few circumstances in which an average cop would be dealing with such potentially large amounts of money.”[/li]
[li]The courts would be clogged with rich people traffic cases- “so what?” Nice rebuttal :D[/li]
[li]Having to send federal income reports to every county you get a ticket in- but it’s argued " police officers nowadays have access to tax records right from their mobile terminals. So they can calculate the actual amount of the fine on the spot."[/li]
Police would go after the rich to meet county and personal quotas; the quota thing is debated at length, kind of belongs in its own thread ;)[/ul]
I was actually thinking about that recently, what with Lindsay Lohan getting in that minor accident. Besides James Dean whom I already mentioned, what other famous rich people have gotten off with/been famous for traffic violations/wrecks they themselves caused?
James Dean
Billy Joel
Jack Whittaker
Barbara Bush
But obv. this is just for recollection, not a serious study- I could call National Safety Council…
Well, I already know the answer to that: they can’t be. If we lived in a country that penalized people differently like they tax them based on income, I’d move.