European speeding fines based on wealth or income. What do you think?

[RB TexLa]

By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writer Frank Jordans, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jan 10, 11:30 am ET
GENEVA – European countries are increasingly pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy scofflaws who would otherwise ignore tickets.

Advocates say a $290,000 (euro203,180.83) speeding ticket slapped on a millionaire Ferrari driver in Switzerland was a fair and well-deserved example of the trend.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland. Only Finland regularly hands out similarly hefty fine to speeding drivers, with the current record believed to be a euro170,000 (then about $190,000) ticket in 2004.

The Swiss court appeared to set a world record when it levied the fine in November on a man identified in the Swiss media only as "Roland S." Judges in the eastern canton of St. Gallen described him as a "traffic thug" in their verdict, which only recently came to light.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_huge_speeding_fine

[cloudbase]

1. Something something

equality under the law something something.

[aquart]

3. But a $100 fine is a penance to a poor man and NOTHING to a rich one.

That ain't close to equal. The effect of the punishment should be equal. It's bloody about time the law noticed.

[jobycom]

7. If it's based on a percentage of income or wealth, it could still be equal.

[eridani]

23. That is equality under the law

It's the same percentage of income for everyone.

[Horse with no Name]

2. There is a HUGE difference

in taking someone's last $100 for a fine and taking $100 from someone who flosses their teeth with $100 bills.
I don't necessarily advocate taking more from the wealthy but I certainly advocate taking less from the poor.

[aquart]

4. Why so protective of the wealthy? Is the point of the fine to discourage the action?

Then anyone fined needs to FEEL IT.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Not protective of the wealthy

Just didn't want to be called an "elitist".:D

[aquart]

15. THEY are the elite. WE are the peasants.

Just to be clear.

[dems_rightnow]

9. There is no "taking"

There's "giving". It's a voluntary tax that people agree to subject themselves to. 100% avoidable, if you so choose.

[jobycom]

5. Yeah, I've thought of that before, for other crimes, too.

instead of so many prison sentences, fine lawbreakers a percentage of income for crimes that don't need jail time.

Of course, the problem is what to do with someone without an income. :(

[icnorth]

10. Community service for both...

or rate of income per hour; either way.

[napi21]

6. Sure would make you slow down! n.t

[proud patriot]

8. as a deterrent it makes sense

:shrug: seems fair

[Tim01]

11. Seems fair to me. nt

[endless october]

13. i'm against ridiculously high fines.

even for the rich.

[slampoet]

17. So you are against $50 fines for poor people.

[endless october]

19. i am against revenue harvesting through traffic fines.

however, i do not argue against speed limits if they are based on 85th percentile reality.

to more properly address your question, however, a $50 ticket doesn't seem out of line if you're driving like an asshole no matter what your income is.

[depakid]

14. Makes sense- just like punitive damage awards

The purpose of a fine is deterrence- whether for an individual- or an abusive corporation.

[dysfunctional press]

18. in regard to 'punitive damage' awards-

i've always felt that they should go to some type of victim's defense fund, or something like that- if a person brings a lawsuit- the compensatory damages are supposed to 'reward/reimburse' them for their loss...punitive damages are meant to punish the offender- why should they necessarily go to the person who's already received compensatory damages...?

[depakid]

20. One reason that this isn't simply a boon is incentives

There's a risk for attorneys and individuals who bring these cases- they're expensive to litigate, corporations paper you to death- and not all of them are successful. Not by a long shot.

In a "better world" governmental entities would actually enforce laws on the books (as they're charged with doing)- and make the civil justice system ancillary. But in America- and under the Obama administration that's far from the case.

So in order to have deterrent value- there has to be both something major to lose (something that impresses the bean counters) AND there has to be a good chance that the victims get to court.

[laughingliberal]

21. Exactly! We hear all sorts of caterwauling from the right about jury awards

but the point of punitive damages is for them to be high enough to change the behavior. At first glance this higher fine for the rich looked weird to me but, on second thought, it's probably sounds. Someone who makes 7 figures isn't going to think a thing about paying a $200 fine and continuing on. A guy working for $10 an hour is going to be wondering how to feed his kid next week.

[Igel]

16. Why not expand it?

If you steal at age 20 you have 50 years left to live. If you steal at age 60 you have 10 years left to live. More or less.

So how's this, to be fair. If you sentence the old guy to 5 years' jail time, that's half of his life. For the youngster that's 25 years. Proportionately, it's fair.

[icnorth]

22. What we are talking about here

is setting a fixed denominator and time left to live is not a fixed denominator. The number of hours, days or months in a year is. Willie "Wing Tips" Wylie earns $2,200,000 for 2,200 hours work in a year. Sam "Shovel Ready" Slipshod earns $22,000 a year. Willie makes $1,000 an hour, Sam makes $10 an hour.

The judge gives each a year's downtime in protective custody. It costs Willie $2.2 mil for being out of circulation for the year, for Sam its $22 thousand. The equivalent fine for the year would be? hmmm?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Except imprisonment has purposes OTHER than punishment.

Namely, protect society from a dangerous person by keeping such person away.