Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).
Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.

Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.

Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That's why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I agree that everyone should be equal under the law, but that doesn't mean that fixed fines are fair. The same amount of money has a different value to different people, and that perceived value changes depending on one's income and wealth.

IDK if you saw my edit in my previous response with the community service example, but I think that might help clear up where we're diverging. If it takes me 10 hours of work to make enough money to pay the fine, but it takes you 100 hours of work to pay the fine for the exact same offense because our salaries are different, were we really punished equally?

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.

Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.

If it's posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he'd have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences because their time is more valuable? Do you at least SEE the parallel I'm trying to draw here?

And I already admitted that I don't know what the optimal metric is. I just know that a flat fine that is the same for everyone, without taking into account their financial situation at all, is unfair.

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences

Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.

I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.

What I think is UNFAIR is trying to "convert" one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.