Turn on thread page Beta

Should fines for crimes be based on income and wealth? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvictus)
    Historically this was the norm. Fines were adminstired through seizures and confiscations, both of which depened on the wealth, income and estates of the offender.
    We tried that and...erm...well...the less said about it the better.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251339.stm

    The ARA [Assets Recovery Agency] has been operating in London and Belfast for almost four years.

    Last year it froze assets belonging to Northern Ireland criminals worth almost £16m.

    But it was also revealed that the agency had recovered only £8m from criminals - despite costing £60m to set up.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    Well the reason is simple, to reduce crime. If we find rich people are less deterred by doing certain crimes, it wouldn't hurt to upp that deterrant - it is only bettering society. Remember, this isn't to do with money really, it is deeply down to detterant. Would you prefer the whole system was changed, to say prison/community service time over cash? I mean we know this is equally bad (more or less) to most people.
    I agree.
    surely community service is better than fines(or as well as). wouldn't it affect those who are poor and rich, pretty much the same?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    So, a system where being rich allows you to get away with crime easily is good for society and law ethically ?
    It doesn't let anyone "get away with crime", if it's a big crime they will have a criminal record regardless.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    Well the reason is simple, to reduce crime. If we find rich people are less deterred by doing certain crimes, it wouldn't hurt to upp that deterrant - it is only bettering society. Remember, this isn't to do with money really, it is deeply down to detterant. Would you prefer the whole system was changed, to say prison/community service time over cash? I mean we know this is equally bad (more or less) to most people.
    I understand that, its the very first thing I said in my post but I personally dont think thats a good enough reason to justify introducing this idea, as there are so many other negative factors which could arise because of it. I also dont really believe that fines themselves are much of a deterant. As such, I dont think its reason enough to bring this in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it should apply to individuals, but corporations and media should be fined a lot more than they are now. The fines handed out, most recently to the supermarkets, are just a drop in the oceans compared to their profits, and don't serve the prupose of a fine in the first place. In the case of media and newspapers a pot is always kept to pay out any lawsuits for libel, which they will do as the libellous story will make them more profit than the amount of the damages awarded by anyone who sues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Hm.. I can easily see the arguments for this, especially seeing as richer people are often able to get more compensation (e.g. in "loss of earnings" cases).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by louisedotcom)
    I understand that, its the very first thing I said in my post but I personally dont think thats a good enough reason to justify introducing this idea, as there are so many other negative factors which could arise because of it. I also dont really believe that fines themselves are much of a deterant. As such, I dont think its reason enough to bring this in.
    Can you explain what negative aspects that exist for society? The criminal loses more money than usual, I mean nothing to cry about like I said. I can't think of anything negative for society to be honest. The harsher the crime the less likely you are doing it - and no need to go into amputation like saudi !
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    Can you explain what negative aspects that exist for society? The criminal loses more money than usual, I mean nothing to cry about like I said. I can't think of anything negative for society to be honest. The harsher the crime the less likely you are doing it - and no need to go into amputation like saudi !
    Read my original post its all in there. It doesnt appear that you actually read it when you initially quoted me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Equality is being used here to support the idea of same crime: same fine. But that isn't neccessarily the correct measure of equality. For the same crime their should be equal punishment...the same punishment is not neccessarrily equal punishment is it? So yeah if we are going to value equality here (I doubt those who invoke it here actually support such a notion) then we have to look at what equal punishment is. It is patent then that a £100 fine may at the same time constitute 100% of one offenders bank balance while constitute a neglible proportion of another. In such a case the punishments for the same crime are grossly unequal. Therefore, i think if we are accepting the idea of equality then it is logical to also accept the idea of income % fines. However, we ought not to get carried away and there certainly ought to be a maximum fine in each case. Paying millions for a speeding ticket would seem unreasonable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    this is bullocks. The wealthier people pay more tax in the first place.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Mixing social redistribution with law and order is a very dangerous thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    Mixing social redistribution with law and order is a very dangerous thing.
    Why?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iCeCream)
    this is bullocks. The wealthier people pay more tax in the first place.
    Not all of them

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...9&in_page_id=2

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1996735.ece

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertinex)
    Why?
    That's going down the route to tyranny, people will leave if they are rich and purposely taxed more just because they were more successful in life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    That's going down the route to tyranny, people will leave if they are rich and purposely taxed more just because they were more successful in life.
    Well the wealthier are taxed more already for various reasons which don't include any motivation to somehow punish the rich. In any case a progressive tax system hardly constitutes tyrany, but we're not talking about taxation here. You said it is very dangerous mixing law and order (i.e. fines) with social distribution, not that social distribution would be the primary argument for income% fines, but nevertheless it would be helpful if you could clarify your point. I don't understand how this proposal is very dangerous??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I favour delimiting the amount of excessive wealth in so few hands, I am wary about supporting a scheme that abolishes the concept that all are equal before the law. If this policy, favouring the poor over the wealthy, were to be introduced, it sets a precadent for that trend to be reversed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MSB)
    It sounds like a fairer way of doing things.

    do explain how this is fairer???:confused: :confused:

    this is just another way the government have found to punish people just because they work extremely hard and therefore earn more money

    [im not saying poorer people don't work extremely hard aswell - but the two tend to go hand in hand in my experiance]

    We already pay about a bajillion pounds in tax every year anyway, why should we be charged even more for commiting a crime?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em_ily31)
    do explain how this is fairer???:confused: :confused:
    It's not particularly difficult. A £500 fine would be a greater punishment on me than it would be on Bill Gates.

    (Original post by em_ily31)
    this is just another way the government have found to punish people just because they work extremely hard and therefore earn more money

    [im not saying poorer people don't work extremely hard aswell - but the two tend to go hand in hand in my experiance]
    Fines aren't there to "punish people just because they work extremely hard", fines are there to punish people "just because" they've broken the law. Also, how much you earn doesn't depend on how hard you work. If that was the case, "poorer people" could break out of poverty by simply putting more effort in...

    (Original post by em_ily31)
    We already pay about a bajillion pounds in tax every year anyway, why should we be charged even more for commiting a crime?
    Paying tax doesn't make you exempt from punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're still paying more tax though aren't they. Your articles point out that, with good tax structuring, a high net worth person's effective rates can be lower then someone on a basic rate. But they still hand over six or seven figure sums to the Revenue every year..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    The reason is, a fine is likely to not be a detterant for a rich guy, as it is a poor. Even for small things, like parking tickets. I avoid violating parking rules because it is too much of a dent in my wallet, even if it means another 10 minutes trying to find a parking spot! But if you was a rich footballer, you probably would not care about the £60 fine.

    Remember, fines main function isn't to just provide financially, it is supposed to be a deterant. I would prefer unequal punishments if it resulted in the same level of deterance to everyone - rather than equal punishment where some people were deterred more than others.



    Speeding kills, its not crazily hard to not speed. Anyway, we have to take that 100k figure with a pinch of salt... Footballers are well known for bad behaviour on the road :O as are other celebrities because the punishments are next to nothing.
    :ditto:

    i honestly don't know how anyone is using the 'they word hard for their money' argument, or even the 'they pay higher taxes' argument. who cares? they commited a crime and should have equal consequences. obviously a £500 fine would be a lot higher consequence to someone on minumum wage than it would be to someone who earns millions each year.

    effectively if you have such low fines for everyone, it's like telling rich people they can do what they like because they can easily buy their way out of it.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

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

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