Finnish sausage king makes history with giant speeding fine

AFP ^ | Tue, Feb 10, 2004

[FreedomCalls]

What is posited is a poor man & a rich man being convicted of EQUAL crimes, and giving the rich man a proportionately longer sentence, based on his earnings.

And what I said is that the way the current system works is that a rich man serves a proportionately shorter sentence for equal crimes. Compare any number of high-profile "Court TV" cases against any local unknown non-rich person's case. Or read Bridges and Crutchfield, 1988; Myers, 1987; Walsh, 1987; Zatz, 1987 who all have determined that the poor will get longer sentences for the same crime than the rich (who can simply afford better attorneys).

[FreedomCalls]

You are defending what any conservative worthy of the name would abhor.

I'n not defending it. I said your argument against it is not valid because one can make the exact same agrument from the other side. I can take that stance and still not support sliding scale fines -- or are you incapable of understanding that?

[southernnorthcarolina]

Do you really think that $200 fine has the same meaning for a elderly person on Social Security that it has for Bill Gates?

Of course not. Is the role of law enforcement to equalize "pain," or to discourage unacceptable behavior? No matter the size of the fine levied on the "evil rich guy," it won't get his attention as much as a suspension or revocation of the applicable license or permit. That's closer to equality.

This is a slippery slope. Would you really advocate the government determining how much you could "afford"? To me, the implications are scary.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I can take that stance and still not support sliding scale fines -- or are you incapable of understanding that?

Thank you yet again for your kind words.

I believe that any reasonable person would interpret your post #22 as doing exactly that. If you wish to back away from that stance, I would encourage you to do so.

[A. Pole]

Is the role of law enforcement to equalize "pain," or to discourage unacceptable behavior?

How can you separate those things?

This is a slippery slope. Would you really advocate the government determining how much you could "afford"? To me, the implications are scary.

Every honest government will do it. That is why Bill Gates pays more taxes than you (hopefuly). Scary is when you get all the "justice" you can afford.

[Abe Froman]

Ha, sausage will always beat the weiner!! LOL Actually if I was in a drag race I would probably be riding my bike:

[Abe Froman]

darnit the picture isn't working. oh well.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I think we would all agree that it is wrong for O.J. or Martha or Jacko or Leona or the Menindez Brothers or John Hinckley (etc. and ad infinitum) to receive lighter sentences (or to skate entirely) based on their ability to pay for the best legal talent. But scaling the initial penalties to a government-perceived "ability to pay" wouldn't solve that. If anything, it would exacerbate the problem.

Have I stumbled into some sort of bizarro-world reverse-angle FReeper page? Do we really have defenders of the Scandanavian way here? Have we been hacked by DU?

[FreedomCalls]

I believe that any reasonable person would interpret your post #22 as doing exactly that.

Where did I advocate sliding scale fines in #22? I was explaining the intent of the law as you didn't seem to understand it.

If you wish to back away from that stance

I haven't taken a stance to back away from. Like I said, your original argument was invalid and easily refuted. After I pointed that out to you, you still seemed unable to comprehend the intent of the law therefore I explained it to you. I didn't advocate adopting such a law at all. I still sensing you have a comprehension problem with what I've written. I didn't defend the law, I explained it.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I didn't defend the law, I explained it.

Uh huh. Have a good evening.

[Nick Danger]

I have an instinctive dislike, as I'd bet the vast majority of FReepers do, to the meting out of "justice" based on one's ability to pay

I understand. You're viewing the fine as a form of punishment. I'm not; I see the whole thing as a system of economic incentives designed to get people to modify their behavior. For some things, like DUI, we would indeed throw people in jail and take away their license to drive. But for parking in the white zone?

I think if you treat fines as a form of punishment, you're basically telling Leona Helmsley that "laws are for little people."

How many times have we seen the Wall Street crook get fined $750,000 after he's already banked $60 million in ill-gotten gains? What signal does that send to the up-and-coming Wall Street crooks?

[Prodigal Son]

Let me get this straight. If you are of modest means, it's more acceptable to endanger other citizens than if you are well-off? Unbelievable. Socialism, as it inevitably will, has truly run amok here.

It's got nothing to do with people of modest means. For them the fine would be what you would consider normal. It's the people of abundant means that the fines target. To a millionaire, there is no reason not to speed. A couple hundred bucks is nothing to him. Better for him just to drive 100 mph everywhere and look on the piddling speeding fines as fees for his time.

But when you scale the fine upward, this starts to get his notice.

Again, it's to keep the ultra rich from out-right flaunting the same laws that the people of modest means have to obey.

We do the same in America with progressive fines. Rich people are fined much more than poorer people just for being able to produce more. It's called income tax.

[CGTRWK]

Worrying about how much better a Bill Gates or a Martha Stewart has it when it comes to paying their traffic tickets is just class envy. There's a political party for that, and their website is over at democrapunderground not here.

Worry about yourself. A system to vary my punishment for a driving offense based upon how well my business did last year is insane. Makes all the sense of beating your kids according to the weather. I don't care if it'll gouge people richer than me even worse, all I need to know is that it's capricious to me. Nuts to that.

Ideology aside, in practical terms traffic tickets are already at least as much about revenue as they are about safety. If pulling over the well-to-do is made a multi thousand dollar jackpot, every cash strapped municipality will give their cops a Beemer quota and it will no longer be possible to drive while affluent. Hire a chauffeur.

[CGTRWK]

To a millionaire, there is no reason not to speed. A couple hundred bucks is nothing to him. Better for him just to drive 100 mph everywhere and look on the piddling speeding fines as fees for his time

Rich people get points on their license that add up to suspension or revocation the same as everybody else does. That's plenty of reason not to speed, and it works fine.

[Prodigal Son]

OK.

But that does not invalidate my explanation as to the rationale behind Finland doing it like this.

That's all I was saying.

We do it as well in the US with taxes. If you're rich, you get fined more.

[Prodigal Son]

BTW, I'm not a resident of Finland. I don't know how their licence point system works ;-)

[geopyg]

"I'm not; I see the whole thing as a system of economic incentives designed to get people to modify their behavior."

Yes - just like alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, expensive boats and cars, etc. Coming to a McDonald's near you soon: the Fat Tax. Of course Fritos, sodas, cookies and candy will also fall under the Fat Tax. Following the Fat Tax - the Caffeine Tax perhaps? (NOOOOOO!!!) And not because the gov't just wants more of our money, but because they are "concerned that we chose healthy lifesytles".

[Nick Danger]

Of course Fritos, sodas, cookies and candy will also fall under the Fat Tax.

Yeah, that's the trouble with liberals. They can't just stop with law enforcement, they have to use the same tools to make everybody eat their spinach. Some day I expect the government to have little machines hovering over the sidewalks. They'll speak in my Aunt Alice's voice: "Don't run, you'll fall."

[A. Pole]

Worrying about how much better a Bill Gates or a Martha Stewart has it when it comes to paying their traffic tickets is just class envy.

You bring the accusation - PROVE IT!

[presidio9]

sure, now that Randall Simon is safely behind bars...