Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Punishment needs to be considered in part by its deterrent effect on the guilty. In part, this is too big as a deterrent effect - simply ruining someone's life with debt doesn't really provide much more of a deterrent than a proportionate one; likewise rich people ought to have a (substantially) greater fine.
    There's no such thing as "too big a deterrent".

    Rich people being fined more goes totally against the concept of equality before the law, then again I'd expect such from an acolyte of the philosophy of envy (leftism.)
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    See above about the definition, will be made clearer in next reading/division!

    Where??
    You could have saved yourselves the hassle by reading through the bill before you submitted it.


    the person is not necessarily driving the vehicle, but are in the vehicle on the public highway/public place.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    There's no such thing as "too big a deterrent".

    Rich people being fined more goes totally against the concept of equality before the law, then again I'd expect such from an acolyte of the philosophy of envy (leftism.)
    You should join the Conservative Party.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If a poor individual does not want to be bankrupted by needing to pay a fine, the poor individual should not have broken the law: it is simple.
    Any criminal penalty needs to be objectively justified in its extent and effect. A fine of £x will have different effects on poor and rich people. Therefore, if a fine is justified in its effect on rich people, it is too great as regards poor people; likewise, a fine which is wholly justified as regards the poor is too small to have the intended consequence as regards the rich.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    You could have saved yourselves the hassle by reading through the bill before you submitted it.
    as i am sure many will agree with me about, when writing about a topic that you have knowledge of, both through common sense, and legally, some things aren't so obvious as to define more clearly... otherwise we'd have no need for second readings.

    And thanks, that'll be changed
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    No it needs to be harsher maybe rather than so many hours community service a ban on driving for x amount of months instantly and confiscation of the vehicle to be sold at auction to rais funds
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You should join the Conservative Party.
    mobbsy91 didn't want me, I assume the same applies now, I also find myself in agreement with 99% of what my liberal colleagues say.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    No it needs to be harsher maybe rather than so many hours community service a ban on driving for x amount of months instantly and confiscation of the vehicle to be sold at auction to rais funds
    For driving the vehicle there is already an instant ban...

    Confiscation of the vehicle is too tricky, as often the driver won't be the owner of the vehicle.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Don't agree with fines, community service and all that. If you're stupid enough to drink-drive and don't have that respect for the road and other road users, you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel and should just lose your licence, simple as that really. Also disagree that the passenger should be punished, not only are they not driving but they also shouldn't be held accountable for anyone elses actions.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    Don't agree with fines, community service and all that. If you're stupid enough to drink-drive and don't have that respect for the road and other road users, you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel and should just lose your licence, simple as that really. Also disagree that the passenger should be punished, not only are they not driving but they also shouldn't be held accountable for anyone elses actions.
    If you have a look at other comments in the thread you'll see about the passenger.

    This Bill does NOT change the way someone is regarded with respect to being in charge of, or driving the vehicle, just increases the punishment slightly.

    Currently, drunk passengers don't get prosecuted for being drunk, and nor would they with this Bill.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I do not see the fairness in giving a lesser punishment to a poor individual who breaks the law when a wealthy individual who breaks the same law is treated more harshly.
    Well, the bill revolves around the idea of furthering punitive measures in regards to driving and being over the legal limit. There is a fairness involved in the sense that people who're poorer/less advantaged wouldn't be impoverished. Both parties and people in between would be punished but not ruined and that's why there cannot be the proposed blanket fine.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    For driving the vehicle there is already an instant ban...

    Confiscation of the vehicle is too tricky, as often the driver won't be the owner of the vehicle.
    If it is stolen then obviously no confiscation however if a owner lends it out it was there choice to trust that person.

    If on finance it should be confiscated used to pay off the debt and again keep the profits
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    If it is stolen then obviously no confiscation however if a owner lends it out it was there choice to trust that person.

    If on finance it should be confiscated used to pay off the debt and again keep the profits
    Why should the owner of it be punished if they allowed someone to use it.. that's absolutely ridiculous...
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Why should the owner of it be punished if they allowed someone to use it.. that's absolutely ridiculous...
    If I lend you a gun, and you go out shoot someone I wouldn't expect the gun back would I ?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    If I lend you a gun, and you go out shoot someone I wouldn't expect the gun back would I ?
    If you had a permit/license to use my gun legally, and you decided to use it to kill someone, and I had no knowledge of it, then after the investigation, I would receive the gun back.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    If you had a permit/license to use my gun legally, and you decided to use it to kill someone, and I had no knowledge of it, then after the investigation, I would receive the gun back.
    Not if it's found to be used in a actual guilty crime
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    We cannot let ourselves think that because someone has broken the law we can throw whatever punishment we want at someone and then use the excuse "They shouldn't of broken the law then". It is never as simple as "break law or don't break law".

    Monetary fines are only effective if people have something to lose. A £5000 fine will never be payable for someone on benefits or a low income salary which are arguably the most likely demographic to be committing these crimes
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The definition is vague, but people have already pointed that out.

    I also think fines should be proportional to income, but rather think such an argument would reach deaf ears with the Tories Fines lead to debt spirals which lead to greater re-offending. This is well understood by criminologists. Rates of recidivism skyrocket when huge fines like these apply as people are forced to mitigate their change in circumstances. This is especially true for offenders with substance abuse problems - including alcohol.

    I would prefer to see an upper boundary defined for the community service too.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    Not if it's found to be used in a actual guilty crime
    Having a look, it does mainly depend on state with much incosistency across the states (using the states in this example for obvious reasons)... I do admit I don't know about the UK though, especially as not really sure how much it's happened in the U.K. Tbh; can't imagine much...

    If I were to go anywhere with the removing car etc, I'd take it down the route of being the same as if a car is seized and impounded due to no insurance and the same costs there, rather than auctioning it...
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    The definition is vague, but people have already pointed that out.

    I also think fines should be proportional to income, but rather think such an argument would reach deaf ears with the Tories Fines lead to debt spirals which lead to greater re-offending. This is well understood by criminologists. Rates of recidivism skyrocket when huge fines like these apply as people are forced to mitigate their change in circumstances. This is especially true for offenders with substance abuse problems - including alcohol.

    I would prefer to see an upper boundary defined for the community service too.
    What's that you're saying?? Can't quite hear

    Upper boundary can be arranged - (inb4 its 5000 hours ;D)
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.