Topic: Same fine for same crime?

[Bob DeBilda]

Following on from a comment I made following one of Mike CM's posts yesterday.

Do you think fines should be means tested?

You often hear people who have been caught speeding for instance saying "It's not the fine, It's the points on my licence" This seems to me that the fine alone is not a deterrant.

Then again, someone on a low income a fine of £60 for speeding could mean no food shopping for a week and they couldn't care less about the points.

[Al]

Jeremy Clarkson once pointed out the cheapest and most secure way of parking for a week in London was to stick the car on a double yellow line and get it towed. Money to some people is nothing more than numbers. There are those that yes, I do think fines should be made much bigger 'cos otherwise it means nothing to them.

[Bob DeBilda]

For the majority of people a fine hurts.
However, as you say a fine to some is just a number and in those cases another form of punishment would be more apt.
For instance if a person on an average income got fined £100 for letting his dog sh*t on a footpath, that would probably act as a deterrent and next time his dog does it he clears it up.
To a millionaire a £100 fine would be just, as you say, a number and it wouldn’t bother him if he got fined that amount regularly. If he wasn’t fined and instead made to pick up the entire dog sh*t in the area every day for a week, then he would think again.

The only problem is proving his wealth to determine that £100 fine is meaningless to him.

[Al]

The only problem is proving his wealth to determine that £100 fine is meaningless to him.

I'd suggest a link to the HMRC, but communication between government departments, how silly of me to suggest such a thing!

[cuthbert-murray]

now your getting silly lol government departments working together what ever next

[Al]

now your getting silly lol government departments working together what ever next

I know I know... I'm still amazed by the cheek of HMRC making me pay for the stamp to send them my money. Tight gits.

[mojo]

Means tested fines were trialled in the UK back in the early 90s, they were an unmitigated disaster.  It also went against one of the basic tenets of UK justice where you are judged against the crime you commit and nothing else.

Cheers

Mojo

[Al]

I would rather argue that the punishment should be equal between two individuals for the same crime. A 60quid fine is no punishment to a rich kid.

[mojo]

On an emotional level then means tested fines seem logical, but as I said they have been tried before, what was discovered was that some individuals not necessarily those who could be classed as rich got massive fines out of all proportion to the seriousness of the crime for example a friend of was fined under the means tested scheme for joining the motorway (M27) a fraction too early and crossed the solid white line at the end of slip road, his fine was over £1400! It went to appeal and was raised in parliament, the fine was reduced but demonstrated the stupidity of the scheme and no he wasn't a high earner but employed in Pompey dockyard on what was then a fairly average wage.
It was also found the those on very low incomes were in effect getting off scot free with the fines being assessed at no more than a couple quid even for driving without insurance.
All in all it was a farce and I'm surprised to find it being raised again as a good idea.

Cheers

Mojo

[Al]

Clearly Mojo the calculation was screwed in the above examples. Its not bloody hard (though, civil servants will make it that way to make their jobs secure) to fine a council house chav 100quid for littering and a toffy nosed lawyer 500quid for littering. Sadly common sense and the law seem to never be able to co-exist. No wonder the country is f'ed.

[Bob DeBilda]

All in all it was a farce and I'm surprised to find it being raised again as a good idea.

Cheers

Mojo

I don't think anyone, me anyway, was suggesting it would be a good idea. I just thought I would try and get others thoughts onthe idea.

Clearly Mojo the calculation was screwed in the above examples. Its not bloody hard (though, civil servants will make it that way to make their jobs secure) to fine a council house chav 100quid for littering and a toffy nosed lawyer 500quid for littering. Sadly common sense and the law seem to never be able to co-exist. No wonder the country is f'ed.

This is true. If the calculations weren't skewed as Al says, then maybe it could work.