Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (9 children)

if the goal of the fine is to deter people from committing a traffic violation, the person making $150k will not be equally deterred compared to the person making $75k. If the fine has too little impact, it no longer works as a deterrent. This is especially true for things like parking tickets, where you aren't necessarily putting yourself or others in danger like you might be for speeding (though, assuming the two people only differ in their income and all other variables -- like how willing they are to drive dangerously -- remain equal, then the point still stands).

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn't we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?

It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)...

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well we went down a road that I think we need to track back.

Poor people committing "necessary" crimes is not the focus and should not be. The whole idea of necessary crimes that should not be punished is awful - we should focus on building a society where people don't end up in a position where they have to steal (etc.) to survive. If we are already thinking of how to better jurisdiction I'd argue we have space to assume we can also better their situation in general. We want to deter them from crimes the most, yes, but not by scaring them with the consequences of being caught - we want to deter them by making them unnecessary. No person should be poor, period.

I think what this comes down to is the question of fines themselves. It has almost something catholic about it. You buy yourself out of punishment. I'd argue that this concept is flawed in itself, no matter how you adjust it.

My guess is that this is what the post was supposed to say. Money in itself isn't too much of a fair concept, or a just one. But punishment, law enforcement, etc, should be, despite taking place in a capitalist society.

What it comes down to would probably be something like social service (my guess). Is the crime committed violent and does the perpetrator pose a severe security risk to society? Then a correction facility that focuses on healing, mental and physical health, rehabilitation and reintegration into society should be the choice. The crime was something that could also be fined? Cut the fine, make it a social service. Picking up trash from sideroads, cleaning public toilets. This will benefit the public/society and no one can buy their way out of it.

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago

Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it's the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)...

Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine's money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)

load more comments (6 replies)