The Scottish Executive is considering the introduction of
an income-based fine system. A similar scheme is
planned for England:
Controversial plans for a radical overhaul of the justice system are understood to include levying fines according to the offender’s ability to pay.
But note the seamless switch from "ability to pay" to "highly paid people". The article - no doubt reflecting political thinking (sic) - doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between income and wealth. Consider the following examples:
Mr A earns £25,000 pa as does his neighbour Mr B. Both get caught speeding, but what we don't see is that Mr A has £100,000 in his savings account while Mr B owes ten grand on his credit card. Is it "fair" that they both get fined, let's say, £250, being 1% of income?
Next:
Ms C and Ms D both earn £30,000. What we don't see is that Ms C has just inherited £500,000 and she is about to marry her millionaire boss. Meanwhile, the balance sheet of Ms D's business shows a net worth of £500,000 but she has just lost her largest customer. Should they both get the same fines for identical offences?
Next:
Mr E's salary is £20,000 pa. His friend F is unemployed but what we don't see is that he keeps his recent £10,000,000 lottery winnings under the bed because he doesn't trust banks and therefore has no income. Would a larger fine for E be "fair"?
We could go on and on down this road. Londoners on £40,000 have far less disposable income than a similarly paid person living in
Lochgelly. Fine those Fifers, I say! Shouldn't "public servants" be liable for huge fines in recognition of their gold-plated pension rights? Indeed, why not issue "negative fines" to offenders whose pension fund has just gone bust because of Gordon Brown's tax-credit raid? I mean, it's only fair, isn't it?
3 comments:
Comments made on previous template:
Squander Two
Peter,
On the subject of punishment, you're broadly right, but your article doesn't address the issue of deterence.
However, you're completely wrong in your assumption that the reason why prison is a punishment is that prisoners don't earn wages. Prison is a punishment because people crave freedom. Everyone's time is valuable to themselves, not because they can use it to earn money, but because they can use it as they please.
20 January 2005, 11:09:19 GMT
– Like – Reply
triticale
There is an urban legend in the United States about a man who was arrested for allegedly stealing money out of vending machines who attempted to post bond with a sack of quarters (25 cent pieces).
20 January 2005, 03:30:18 GMT
– Like – Reply
Peter Saunders
A left-wing think-tank here in Australia just this week issued a report arguing for income-related speeding and traffic fines. I published an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald in response to this report, arguing such a system is both unworkable and unfair. This article can be accessed at http://www.cis.org.au/exechigh/Eh2005/EH25005.htm
19 January 2005, 22:12:36 GMT
– Like – Reply
Squander Two
> But you still believe that person should pay a larger fine?
Depends on the crime. If a fine is supposed to be a deterrent, then, if it doesn't deter, it needs to be changed. But you can't keep increasing it until it's an effective deterrent to the richest people in society, for obvious reasons. Parking fines should definitely be based on some type of wealth assessment.
I actually rather like the approach used in the City of London: park your car illegally and it will be removed pretty much immediately. The inconvenience is a good deterrent for rich and poor alike.
That David Friedman piece is spot-on.
18 January 2005, 17:11:41 GMT
– Like – Reply
Andy Wood
David Friedman is worth reading on this subject. Here's chapter 15 of his book Law's Order:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Laws_Order_draft/laws_order_ch_15.htm
"Should the Rich Pay Higher Fines?" is about half-way down the page.
The entire book is well worth a read.
18 January 2005, 16:55:38 GMT
– Like – Reply
B Rockall
Squander Two
> Is that not also a reason to work hard, get on and receive a higher salary?
Yes.
But you still believe that person should pay a larger fine?
18 January 2005, 16:23:24 GMT
– Like – Reply
Squander Two
> Is that not also a reason to work hard, get on and receive a higher salary?
Yes.
> Do you trust the state ...?
No.
18 January 2005, 16:16:58 GMT
– Like – Reply
B Rockall
Squander Two
"One of the reasons to save money is so that you have some put by in the case of emergencies, such as an unexpected fine"
Is that not also a reason to work hard, get on and receive a higher salary?
18 January 2005, 16:05:54 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
Squander Two
All good points well made.
But this proposal the Labour Party are currently chewing over comes down to trust. Do you trust the state and the Labour Party (which virtually is the state in Scotland) to be reasonable and sensible; or do you distrust them and expect them to soon abuse what would effectively be a new tax on the statute books?
I try my best, but personally I find it very hard to trust the Labour Party.
18 January 2005, 13:21:52 GMT
– Like – Reply
Squander Two
I remember it being tried out in London. They completely screwed up the implementation, but it does attempt to address a real issue. The main problem is parking fines. A fixed penalty of, say, £100 for parking on a double yellow line effectively turns double yellow lines into millionaire-only parking lots. In London (or Glasgow, come to think of it), where one illegally-parked car can snarl up traffic for a mile or so, the parking fine has to be a deterent, not just a punishment, or it's useless.
Same with the crisp packet, really. You have to decide whether you want to stop people dropping litter or whether you want to stop poor people dropping litter. A £1200 fine may sound ridiculous, but then a £100 fine can sound equally ridiculous to someone who earns £80 a week.
While the disparity between private and state pension rights pisses me off, I don't see why it should be taken into account by any system of fines. Any reasonable system should take into account how much money you have now, not how much you'll probably have in thirty or forty years. Same goes for someone who is about to marry a millionaire. If she's already married him, a good system of adjustable fines should reflect that, but it certainly shouldn't treat money that she does not yet have as being hers. Someone's just lost her largest customer? What a shame. I see no reason for the state to take that into account.
> Mr A earns £25,000 pa as does his neighbour Mr B. Both get caught speeding, but what we don't see is that Mr A has £100,000 in his savings account while Mr B owes ten grand on his credit card. Is it "fair" that they both get fined, let's say, £250, being 1% of income?
Absolutely, yes. One of the reasons to save money is so that you have some put by in the case of emergencies, such as an unexpected fine. If you earn £25000 and choose to squander it all, that's your business. I can see why the state should adjust punishments to make them (roughly) equally punishing. I don't see why the state should adjust punishments to benefit people who choose to live beyond their means and penalise those who don't.
There is, after all, a very easy way to avoid these fines.
18 January 2005, 11:59:23 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
From your Scotsman link:
-"The controversial system was tried out in England and Wales more than ten years ago, but was dropped amid widespread uproar. One middle-class offender was stunned when a court ordered him to pay £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet."
Sounds like a way to raise revenue rather that a disincentive to criminality.
Those nasty crisp-bag-droppers must be birched I tell you.
17 January 2005, 11:13:59 GMT
– Like – Reply
Rob Read
We allready fine people based on their earnings. With the fine increasing in stages, their is an especially high fine for those that are financially succesful.
What do you think income tax is?
17 January 2005, 00:49:55 GMT
– Like – Reply
Neil Craig
All fair points, though a guy with 10 mill under the bed could be charged with perjury if he denied it. All rules can look silly at the margins.
Nonetheless a punishment should hurt & if the 360th richest Briton gets off with a, to him, mere 1/4 million fine for inadvertently funding an invasion then that isn't going to hurt.
16 January 2005, 20:06:47 GMT
– Like – Reply
B Rockall
In the interests of "equality" why not give those about to receive a custodial sentence a medical and base the length of their incarceration on their likely longevity!
16 January 2005, 17:01:28 GMT
Post a Comment