NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-947993,0.html

La loi finlandaise est ainsi faite : les amendes sont proportionnelles au revenu du contrevenant. Un automobiliste suédois qui avait été flashé à 67 km/h dans une zone limitée à 30 km/h, en mars, sur l'île finlandaise d'Aaland, a été condamné à payer 20 500 euros. Cette somme correspond à 50 journées de travail. Et, comme ce promoteur immobilier sexagénaire avait déclaré en 2006 290 000 euros de revenu, sa journée de travail a été évaluée à 415 euros par le tribunal d'instance d'Aaland. Les circonstances aggravantes ont été retenues en raison de la présence d'écoles dans le secteur. Mais le chauffard s'en tire bien, car dépasser de plus de 100 % la limite de 30 km/h est normalement passible de prison. Le condamné a fait appel.

The law in Finland stipulates that fines be calculated on the basis of one's income, which a relatively affluent Swedish driver was made aware of when he was fined €20 500 for driving 67 km/h in a 30 km/h zone in the autonomous island semi-nation of Åland. An aggravating circumstance was that the zone contained schools. He got off lightly, because usually driving 30 km/h over the limit in a 30 km/h zone entails prison. The driver has appealed.

Ouch! That must have burnt a bit. I know it would me... but I find myself thinking, that's actually the way it supposed to be! Fines should be felt, and it is equitable in a sense that the affluent not be immune to fines as their pecuniary situation might otherwise entail. Then again, I'd really hate to be on the receiving end. :\

I like the idea of being fined based on what one makes. I'd get away with a $5 speeding ticket! :D

Ouch! That must have burnt a bit. I know it would me... but I find myself thinking, that's actually the way it supposed to be! Fines should be felt, and it is equitable in a sense that the affluent not be immune to fines as their pecuniary situation might otherwise entail. Then again, I'd really hate to be on the the receiving end. :\

Well, no, not really. Because you'd be filthy rich and €20500 would be like loose change.

You'd still hate it, probably :p, but it wouldn't hurt you. Duh.

It does strike one as sensible that fines should be proportionate to one's means.

Nonetheless, the severity of the fine for a "crime" as negligable as speeding (I defy the will of any drive not to enjoy speed) is vexing.

It does strike one as sensible that fines should be proportionate to one's means.

Nonetheless, the severity of the fine for a "crime" as negligable as speeding (I defy the will of any drive not to enjoy speed) is vexing.

Enjoyment is irrelevant.
EDIT: And certainly doesn't make a crime negligible.

I could have sworn this was on here before. Sounds very familiar.....

Well, no, not really. Because you'd be filthy rich and €20500 would be like loose change.

You'd still hate it, probably :p, but it wouldn't hurt you. Duh.

Uhm, If I were "filthy rich", the fine would be much, much higher. Remember, "based on income" means that the fine rises with your income. For instance, this guy was given 50 "dagsböter", which literally means "day fine". Since he had declared his income for the previous year as being €290 000, his daily income was somehow calculated to have been €415 (don't ask me how). Times 50...

... so, imagine if one made €2 500 000. Being "filthy rich" wouldn't preclude this from really stinging, which is the point.

Nonetheless, the severity of the fine for a "crime" as negligable as speeding (I defy the will of any drive not to enjoy speed) is vexing.

Depends how fast you're over the limit by. I personally have seconded suggestions for a 10% tolerance on speeding - e.g. if you do 33mph in a 30mph zone, it's hardly worth bothering with, whereas doing 70mph in a 30mph zone obviously is.

Poor Swede! I mean... he must be. That's not even close to be one of the heaviest fines given out in here. ;)

So, you're among the 70% of Swedes who want the same practice in Sweden... (I read your yellow press, and they said it's 70%, so it must be true!)

Enjoyment is irrelevant.

Sensation is everything.

Nonetheless, the severity of the fine for a "crime" as negligable as speeding (I defy the will of any drive not to enjoy speed) is vexing.

Speeding is not a negligible offense at all; it endangers people in a potentially lethal way. I feel very strongly about any kind and severity of speeding, but even you will have to admit that driving more than double the speed limit in a school zone is not a negligible thing, but seriously reckless and irresponsible.


And I absolutely agree with fines being made to fit the offender's budget.

his daily income was somehow calculated to have been €415 (don't ask me how). Times 50...

I think that's after taxes. I could be wrong.

I like the idea of being fined based on what one makes. I'd get away with a $5 speeding ticket! :D

I would imagine they have a minimum.

Speeding is not a negligible offense at all; it endangers people in a potentially lethal way. I feel very strongly about any kind and severity of speeding, but even you will have to admit that driving more than double the speed limit in a school zone is not a negligible thing, but seriously reckless and irresponsible.


And I absolutely agree with fines being made to fit the offender's budget.

I agree :) Speeding on a highway is in my eyes much less of a 'crime' than speeding in a school zone. And making fines related to incoming is the second best thing I like about Finland (after Mintu) :p

It does strike one as sensible that fines should be proportionate to one's means.

Nonetheless, the severity of the fine for a "crime" as negligable as speeding (I defy the will of any drive not to enjoy speed) is vexing.Driving fast may be fun. But there are places you can go to experience the thrill of speed. You do not own the public highways in any way, shape or form. A driver's use of public highways is a privilege and not a right.

To recklessly disregard the safety of other users of the roads and streets is highly disrespectful and should be punished with such severity.

At ~70kmph he could have easily killed a child going to or leaving school.

Driving at such speeds in front of a school is not acceptable.

Sensation is everything.

So the fact that speeding is enjoyable somehow justifies the risk to human life? Cos I hear shooting sprees are a barrel of laughs.

Poor Swede! I mean... he must be. That's not even close to be one of the heaviest fines given out in here. ;)

I know, and I did say relatively affluent. €290 000 isn't exactly astronomical, but it ain't Biafra child level either.

So, you're among the 70% of Swedes who want the same practice in Sweden... (I read your yellow press, and they said it's 70%, so it must be true!)

Aftonbladet and Expressen? You really shouldn't... but it is hard to argue against these types of fines. I'm just conflicted due to a misdirected since of empathy.

I would imagine they have a minimum.
Yeah. I can't be bothered to translate this (http://www.om.fi/Etusivu/Perussaannoksia/Rikesakko?lang=sv), but it's 'round 85€.

Yeah. I can't be bothered to translate this (http://www.om.fi/Etusivu/Perussaannoksia/Rikesakko?lang=sv), but it's 'round 85€.

I always find the obligatory Swedish Finnish bilingualism giggle-worthy. Fortunate and historically a no-brainer, but still giggle-worthy.

I agree :) Speeding on a highway is in my eyes much less of a 'crime' than speeding in a school zone.

I'm not quite sure about that; I feel many people underestimate their speed once they go over a certain limit and don't even realize just how much control they're losing (e.g. being completely oblivious to just how damn much way they need until a stop, or just how far a single second of steering a bit too much to one side can lead them to stray, etc), making speeding on highways just as dangerous, in a different way.




P.S. Fassigen, what the fuck did you do that drive-by post and then switch to offline for?!

Aftonbladet and Expressen? You really shouldn't...
Eh, yes I know... krhm ...but I do get the real stories concerning Sweden from the Hbl. I just read Aftonbladet and Expressen cos their websites are bright and colourful...

I always find the obligatory Swedish Finnish bilingualism giggle-worthy. Fortunate and historically a no-brainer, but still giggle-worthy.
Very fortunate indeed. I wouldn't mind if we'd have Russian as third obligatory language

Eh, yes I know... krhm ...but I do get the real stories concerning Sweden from the Hbl. I just read Aftonbladet and Expressen cos their websites are bright and colourful...

Hufvudstadbladet? Never read it.. and I wouldn't know about A&E, since even when I bother to read them to fill my gossip quota for the month, I have them stripped of most of the non-textual content with the aide of adblock and greasemonkey.

Very fortunate indeed. I wouldn't mind if we'd have Russian as third obligatory language

But you were only theirs for like a century and ours for like... ever. You weren't some weird grand duchy or whatever, you were like Götaland, Svealand and Norrland. Just "Österland".

I just read Aftonbladet and Expressen cos their websites are bright and colourful...

I recommend www.8sidor.se ... it's not particularly colorful, and even less bright, but you can even get them to read it out aloud for you!

Hmm, if I were an undischarged bankrupt, would the law PAY ME to speed past the school?

But seriously, it sounds like a great idea.

For a guy rich enough to have that as speeding ticket money, it'd be like giving away a dime. Sounds sensible.

Hufvudstadbladet? Never read it.. and I wouldn't know about A&E, since even when I bother to read them to fill my gossip quota for the month, I have them stripped of most of the non-textual content with the aide of adblock and greasemonkey.Yeah. Hbl is quite good quality. Reading A&E in text format only is like using methadone instead of the real thing! How would I know how much cleavage Madde showed without the pictures!?! How would I know HOW red CG's pants were?!?

I recommend www.8sidor.se ... it's not particularly colorful, and even less bright, but you can even get them to read it out aloud for you!

That reads like something a first grader would write. The sentences are all stilted and really, really... simple. "Duh!" for a paper aimed at those who've just started learning Swedish and the retarded, but... gah! It reads like "See Spot run. Run Spot run. Good boy.".

For a guy rich enough to have that as speeding ticket money, it'd be like giving away a dime. Sounds sensible.

It is quite a significant percentage of his earnings to be honest. I wouldn't compare it to giving away a dime

But you were only theirs for like a century and ours for like... ever. You weren't some weird grand duchy or whatever, you were like Götaland, Svealand and Norrland. Just "Österland".

Oh, we were never yours! I could quote Kahlil Gibran to you, but you know it by heart...
;)

Oh, we were never yours!

600+ years under our rule would beg to differ...

I could quote Kahlil Gibran to you, but you know it by heart...
;)

... but that really is water under the bridge, even for Lebanese people I had to google.

That reads like something a first grader would write. The sentences are all stilted and really, really... simple. "Duh!" for a paper aimed at those who've just started learning Swedish and the retarded, but... gah! It reads like "See Spot run. Run Spot run. Good boy.".

Well, at least it does its share to enable us dirty foeigners to say "See Spot run. Run Spot run." in Swedish, which is rather an accomplishment in my eyes - incidentally one I have so far not mastered, I fear.
And you're still a bastard for signing off Skype, but I really have to leave for beddy bed now anyway. Tzz.

I know, and I did say relatively affluent. €290 000 isn't exactly astronomical, but it ain't Biafra child level either.
Well, I don't know, but making €24,000 a month sounds pretty astronomical to me. O.O

Well, at least it does its share to enable us dirty foeigners to say "See Spot run. Run Spot run." in Swedish, which is rather an accomplishment in my eyes - incidentally one I have so far not mastered, I fear.
And you're still a bastard for signing off Skype, but I really have to leave for beddy bed now anyway. Tzz.

Don't rely too much on it, though. "Grekiska regeringen får skäll för skogsbränder" - "få skäll" is something that happens when children have done something naughty and they are castigated by their parents. Them using to mean that criticism has been aimed at the Greek government is infantile bordering on the cute. Not my fault you take forever to respond.

I could have sworn this was on here before. Sounds very familiar.....
Aye, it has already been discussed here.

I always find the obligatory Swedish Finnish bilingualism giggle-worthy. Fortunate and historically a no-brainer, but still giggle-worthy.I always find the Swedish attitude to Finnish language in Sweden giggle worthy.

Oppressive and demeaning, yes, but still giggle worthy. :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know, but making €24,000 a month sounds pretty astronomical to me. O.O

Not when compared to some Finnish millionaires (if not billionaires) who've gotten in trouble like this.

600+ years under our rule would beg to differ...
... but that really is water under the bridge, even for Lebanese people I had to google.
Oh, in a Finnish self-loathing way I was referring to one of his poems (http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html). 'They belong not to you' and all that jive. I'm told we've got over that, though.

Don't rely too much on it, though. "Grekiska regeringen får skäll för skogsbränder" - "få skäll" is something that happens when children have done something naughty and they are castigated by their parents. Them using to mean that criticism has been aimed at the Greek government is infantile bordering on the cute. Not my fault you take forever to respond.

What you're trying to say is that I finally found a newspaper suited to my style? Awesomenity. Is, too, if you set a language it takes me three minutes to write a single coherent sentence in.

Not when compared to some Finnish millionaires (if not billionaires) who've gotten in trouble like this.

I want to be a Finnish millionaire. Or billionaire. Oh, and not Finnish, really. Actually, just making €24,000 a month would be fine.

I always find the Swedish attitude to Finnish language in Sweden giggle worthy.

Oppressive and demeaning, yes, but still giggle worthy. :rolleyes:

We've no reason to have it have the same standing Swedish has in Finland (Swedish, by the way, doesn't even have the same standing in Sweden that it has in Finland), but Finnish is one of the five official minority languages and it means that one can demand that the government deal with one in it in parts of the country with high populations of Finns/proximity to Finland, and that it enjoys special protections, but I guess that's somehow "oppressive and demeaning".

What you're trying to say is that I finally found a newspaper suited to my style? Awesomenity. Is, too, if you set a language it takes me three minutes to write a single coherent sentence in.

Quite. You will have to send me the sentence post haste, lest I go to bed and forget about it.

I want to be a Finnish millionaire. Or billionaire. Oh, and not Finnish, really. Actually, just making €24,000 a month would be fine.

I hears and gets ya. As a student, €24 000 is... Scrooge McDuck-ish!

It does strike one as sensible that fines should be proportionate to one's means.

No it does not. It would mean that two people would be unequal in the eyes of the law. Such a practice should be strenuously excised from any civilized legal system, not celebrated.

The hallmark of a just legal system is that every person, no matter who that person is, be held as the equal to everyone else under the law. That the law afford no one any special privilidge or punishment based on that person's race, religion, orientation or status.

Now true, in the past it has been the poor who were seen as unequal, and the idea of the rich being forced to pay more seems a bit more palatable. To me however the principle remains the same. The law should apply to all equally. This mans wealth should be, same as his race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor, irrelevant to his punishment.

No it does not. It would mean that two people would be unequal in the eyes of the law. Such a practice should be strenuously excised from any civilized legal system, not celebrated.


Is it not unequal though that someone with less money should be punished to a greater level for the same crime?

The same fine does not mean the same punishment has been given

We've no reason to have it have the same standing Swedish has in Finland SNIP
I have to agree. The Finnish minority in Sweden isn't near as big as is the Swedish one in Finland. The only difference between Swedish and Finnish state officials for me is that in Sweden I could end up waiting for ahile before they'll provide me an official speaking Finnish. In Finland officials are required to speak Swedish also.

Is it not unequal though that someone with less money should be punished to a greater level for the same crime?

they are not punished to a greater level. The punishment is exactly the same, the exact same fine.

That punishment may affect the poor more than the rich, this is true. However that does not change the fact that altering the punishment of a crime based on who the person is, is an anathma to the concept of justice.

The punishment for a crime should never take into account who the punished is, only what the crime was.

Quite. You will have to send me the sentence post haste, lest I go to bed and forget about it.

How quaint it is to agree with you. Three minutes is 'post haste' in Swedish, you fool.

No it does not. It would mean that two people would be unequal in the eyes of the law. Such a practice should be strenuously excised from any civilized legal system, not celebrated.

The hallmark of a just legal system is that every person, no matter who that person is, be held as the equal to everyone else under the law. That the law afford no one any special privilidge or punishment based on that person's race, religion, orientation or status.

Now true, in the past it has been the poor who were seen as unequal, and the idea of the rich being forced to pay more seems a bit more palatable. To me however the principle remains the same. The law should apply to all equally. This mans wealth should be, same as his race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor, irrelevant to his punishment.

So what if the law says "If you drive 30 km/h too fast, you are fined one monthly income" (random example, badly put).
Which is how I'm guessing such laws are phrased (except, well, better).

How is that "unequal"?

So what if the law says "If you drive 30 km/h too fast, you are fined one monthly income" (random example, badly put).
Which is how I'm guessing such laws are phrased (except, well, better).

How is that "unequal"?

It's unequal in that two people having committed the exact same act, under the exact same circumstances, will face different punishments.

That's rather the definition of unequal.

What if we didn't do it on income? What if the law said "if you rob someone, you will be punished by spending what we estimate to be half of your remaining natural life in prison" Rather comparable wouldn't you say? Same idea. Instead of "you pay one month" it's "you spend half your life in jail"

A 30 year old rapist may then spend...20 years in jail. A 60 year old rapist would spend 5.

Doesn't seem unequal to you?

It would mean that two people would be unequal in the eyes of the law.

This equalises them before the law. Pecuniary punishments are supposed to be felt in the purse - they are not something that the fortunate should be able to ignore, which they easily can when they have to pay the same amount as for instance a single mother of two working the check-out at a grocery store.

This mans wealth should be, same as his race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor, irrelevant to his punishment.

Wealth simply isn't irrelevant when it comes to pecuniary punishments - it is at the centre of the issue - and neither is it "equal" for a rich person to pay what is to him a pittance and thus not a punishment at all, while someone poor might see their economy in dire straights over the same amount. You may want to ignore the latter injustice because it is an actual one and focus on one you imagine, but a lot of the rest of us don't.

No it does not. It would mean that two people would be unequal in the eyes of the law. Such a practice should be strenuously excised from any civilized legal system, not celebrated.

So, in the USA a Mom and Pop outfit pays as much in fines as does McDonalds when somebody pours hot coffee in their lap? Ok.

It's unequal in that two people having committed the exact same act, under the exact same circumstances, will face different punishments.

That's rather the definition of unequal.

What if we didn't do it on income? What if the law said "if you rob someone, you will be punished by spending what we estimate to be half of your remaining natural life in prison" Rather comparable wouldn't you say? Same idea. Instead of "you pay one month" it's "you spend half your life in jail"

A 30 year old rapist may then spend...20 years in jail. A 60 year old rapist would spend 5.

Doesn't seem unequal to you?OH! This only goes as far as 'day fines' go here. Only monetary punishments are 'proggressive' like taxes.

OH! This only goes as far as 'day fines' go here. Only monetary punishments are 'proggressive' like taxes.

So we would find it odd if we gave prison sentences based on age, but not fines based on wealth. Sorry, I see no difference. Law is law, and the principle is that we are all equal under the law.

It's unequal in that two people having committed the exact same act, under the exact same circumstances, will face different punishments.

That's rather the definition of unequal.

What if we didn't do it on income? What if the law said "if you rob someone, you will be punished by spending what we estimate to be half of your remaining natural life in prison" Rather comparable wouldn't you say? Same idea. Instead of "you pay one month" it's "you spend half your life in jail"

A 30 year old rapist may then spend...20 years in jail. A 60 year old rapist would spend 5.

Doesn't seem unequal to you?
o.O That doesn't work because we don't know how long they will live. I can't talk about that scenario because it's impossible (i.e. not because I'm stubborn).

And I totally, totally don't see your point re. the unequal in the case at hand. I know what you're getting at but I think you're wrong, plainly put.
It's the same punishment because the punishment is "pay one monthly income" for everyone.

And I also refuse to feel that I'm wrong because there are several countries who have laws like that and they all have the "equal before the law" thing, too, so they must think it's equal, so there.

And yes, I talk like a 5 year old today. Shuddup.

OH! This only goes as far as 'day fines' go here. Only monetary punishments are 'proggressive' like taxes.

He was just using it as an example for comparison purposes but it didn't make sense anyway. ;P

So, in the USA a Mom and Pop outfit pays as much in fines as does McDonalds when somebody pours hot coffee in their lap? Ok.
Excellent point.

He was just using it as an example for comparison purposes but it didn't make sense anyway. ;P

He was comparing apples and oranges, and we could all just smell the scent of peel coming undone.

Pecuniary punishments are supposed to be felt in the purse - they are not something that the fortunate should be able to ignore, which they easily can when they have to pay the same amount as for instance a single mother of two working the check-out at a grocery store. .

Penal punishments are supposed to be felt in having years taken from your life - they are not something that the young should be able to ignore, which they easily can when they go to jail for the same amount of time as for instance an 80 year old great grandmother who only has a few years to live and will spend most of the remaining ones behind bars.

The young however will do their time and still have many years left ahead of them so it doesn't hurt them as much.

And this of course is equally as fucking inane, and equally fundamentally contrary to any reasonable form of justice.

Excellent point.

except that the whole mcdonald's coffee thing was a lawsuit, and thus civil law, which is a completely different animal.

Which makes it a pretty damned stupid point.

Now if your point is that if in serving coffee too hot also violates some health code regulation that causes a fee, yes, absolutly the same mom and pop store gets fined the same as the big company for violating the law. They violate the same law, in the same circumstances, the punishment must be the same.

He was comparing apples and oranges, and we could all just smell the scent of peel coming undone.

Impossible oranges, mainly.

Impossible oranges, mainly.

At least the straws he was clutching at were only figurative.

OMG I found something that I disagree with Arthais on. :eek:

:p

Like someone above me said, when it comes to monetary punishments, I do think a persons/corporations wealth shoudl be taken into consideration when levying the fine.

We are not all equal when it comes to punishment

Which, as a matter of law, is barbaric, and creating different fees based on wealth is, as a matter of justice, no different than fining a black man more than a white man.

So we would find it odd if we gave prison sentences based on age, but not fines based on wealth. Sorry, I see no difference. Law is law, and the principle is that we are all equal under the law.True that. We are not all equal when it comes to punishment, though. This is what our system is trying to correct. Sorry if you don't like it. We commies seem to like it ok. Just remember when it comes to more serious crimes we are... 'more' equal; one crime - one punishment.

Penal punishments are supposed to be felt in having years taken from your life - they are not something that the young should be able to ignore, which they easily can when they go to jail for the same amount of time as for instance an 80 year old great grandmother who only has a few years to live and will spend most of the remaining ones behind bars.

The young however will do their time and still have many years left ahead of them so it doesn't hurt them as much.

What? Are you serious?

I have never once thought that a young person has less to lose by going to prison for 15 years than an old person. What does it matter if they live out their live in prison from 75 to 90 as opposed to spending 15 fucking years behind bars between 20 and 35 when other people do a large amount of, well, living during those years?

It's always 15 years. And it's always horrible, no matter when you have to do them.

Penal punishments are supposed to be felt in having years taken from your life - they are not something that the young should be able to ignore, which they easily can when they go to jail for the same amount of time as for instance an 80 year old great grandmother who only has a few years to live and will spend most of the remaining ones behind bars.

The young however will do their time and still have many years left ahead of them so it doesn't hurt them as much.

And this of course is equally as fucking inane, and equally fundamentally contrary to any reasonable form of justice.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You bore me with your fallacy consisting of an irrelevant and ludicrous analogy. *yawns*

What? Are you serious?

I have never once thought that a young person has less to lose by going to prison for 15 years than an old person. What does it matter if they live out their live in prison from 75 to 90 as opposed to spending 15 fucking years behind bars between 20 and 35 when other people do a large amount of, well, living during those years?

How much living does the 35 year old get to do, on average, once he gets out of prison?

How much living does the 90 year old get to do, on average, one he gets out of prison?

Big difference don't you think?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You bore me with your fallacy consisting of an irrelevant and ludicrous analogy. *yawns*

poor poor fass, you of all people should have realized by now. Just because you're incapable of coming up with an intelligent response, doesn't make the point invalid.

It just makes you incapable.

except that the whole mcdonald's coffee thing was a lawsuit, and thus civil law, which is a completely different animal.

Which makes it a pretty damned stupid point.

Now if your point is that if in serving coffee too hot also violates some health code regulation that causes a fee, yes, absolutly the same mom and pop store gets fined the same as the big company for violating the law. They violate the same law, in the same circumstances, the punishment must be the same.

Nooo, I wasn't talking about the old McDonald's coffee thing.

I was talking about suing a billion-dollar-company for damages as opposed to suing an individual.

Like, if you sued Starbucks for causing you to break your leg surely you'd get awarded much more money than if you sued your sister-in-law. Right? Right? Don't tell me that's not true and your sister-in-law, with her part time secretary job, has to pay the 10 million Starbucks has to pay?!

Like someone above me said, when it comes to monetary punishments, I do think a persons/corporations wealth shoudl be taken into consideration when levying the fine.

And I think that taking a consideration, ANY consideration, other than the criminal act committed, in determining the punishment, is an anathma to the concept of ordered justice.

You can disagree if you want, feel free. Or you can be obnoxious and snarky because you can't manage any reasoned response other than "nuh uh" as some other posters have managed.

Though, you are, of course, free to disagree.

And notice I did say criminal acts. Civil law is, as I said, an entirely different animal, and is the proper medium for such things as punitive damages. The criminal field, however, should care about one thing and one thing only. The criminal act committed. Anything else is fundamentally opposed to justice.

How much living does the 35 year old get to do, on average, once he gets out of prison?

How much living does the 90 year old get to do, on average, one he gets out of prison?

Big difference don't you think?
What? No! I can't even wrap my head around that line of thinking. The 90 year old "got all his living done" before he went to prison. He's 90!

It's always 15 years!

poor poor fass, you of all people should have realized by now. Just because you're incapable of coming up with an intelligent response, doesn't make the point invalid.

It just makes you incapable.

Your posts merit no reply, as they have nothing on-topic or relevant that one can reply to. Sure, you may really like your oranges, but in a thread on apples they stand out like the citrusy irrelevance that they are. Replying to them only serves to perpetuate the flawed notion that you've managed to fool anyone else but yourself of their relevance.

Nooo, I wasn't talking about the old McDonald's coffee thing.

I was talking about suing a billion-dollar-company for damages as opposed to suing an individual.

Like, if you sued Starbucks for causing you to break your leg surely you'd get awarded much more money than when you sue your sister-in-law. Right? Right? Don't tell me that's not true and your sister-in-law, with her part time secretary job, has to pay the 10 million Starbucks has to pay?!

The bolded parts are for emphasis. I'm not talking about lawsuits. Entirely different thing.

I am talking about administrative fines. Civil suits are the realm of punitive damages. Civil suits are the place for this.

Not criminal violations.

And, to point, as far as compensatory damages go, your sister in law would, theoretically, have the same judgement as starbucks (assuming equivalent damages and equivalent duties, and equivalent breaches, and all different things none of which having anything to do with income)

And I think that taking a consideration, ANY consideration, other than the criminal act committed, in determining the punishment, is an anathma to the concept of ordered justice.
I see your point (I still don't agree with the fines thing) but wouldn't that also outlaw giving consideration in capital cases to mitigating and aggravating factors?

Your post merits no reply, as they have nothing on-topic or relevant that one can reply to. Sure, you may really like your oranges, but in a thread on apples they stand out like the citrusy irrelevance that they are. Replying to them only serves to perpetuate the flawed notion that you've managed to fool anyone else but yourself of their relevance.

Well golly gee, I would think that in a thread discussing a particularly large fine, discussions as to whether such a fine is justified or just would be completely on topic to a discussion on the aforementioned fine.

Or, funny enough, you didn't seem to have any problems with anyone else discussing their agreement with such scaling fines, or the off topic nature of which, and only seem to pull out your "well you're off topic!" bullshit once someone posted a disagreeing point.

Which makes one wonder why you are so sensitive and hyperactive when exposed to viewpoints that differ from your own.

Oh well, it's not my fault if you managed to get your little pink panties in a bunch because oh my god someone actually disagrees with you, you're free to stomp your feet, plug your ears and yell IM NOT LISTENING!!!! all you want in the face of someone who doesn't think you're right (big blow to the ego, I"m sure).

However, if you insist on throwing such a temper tantrum, may I suggest coming up with a response a little more...shall we say, intellectually advanced than the equivalent of "oh yeah? well you're a doodyhead!"

I see your point (I still don't agree with the fines thing) but wouldn't that also outlaw giving consideration in capital cases to mitigating and aggravating factors?

well, you raise an interesting point. One could say that the whole point of mitigating and aggrevating factors is to determine the precise contours of the act. Which is to say if we consider the circumstances of the murder, then no, not really, as we're considering the events of the crime.

If it considers the circumstances of whether or not he has a loving family and always went to church every sunday, then yes, absolutly it would.

Of course, since I'm in favor of ditching the whole capital case thing all together, you will find little fight with me about that.

And anyway WYTYG, since I'm actually doing some business in your neighboring country to the east, and it's now nearing 1am here in warsaw, and I do have an early flight, we'll have to pick it up some other time Oh, and I'm actually going to be in a brief layover in frankfurt, come say hi :p

well, you raise an interesting point. One could say that the whole point of mitigating and aggrevating factors is to determine the precise contours of the act. Which is to say if we consider the circumstances of the murder, then no, not really, as we're considering the events of the crime.

If it considers the circumstances of whether or not he has a loving family and always went to church every sunday, then yes, absolutly it would.

Of course, since I'm in favor of ditching the whole capital case thing all together, you will find little fight with me about that.

And anyway WYTYG, since I'm actually doing some business in your neighboring country to the east, and it's now nearing 1am here in warsaw, and I do have an early flight, we'll have to pick it up some other time Oh, and I'm actually going to be in a brief layover in frankfurt, come say hi :p

Good, I didn't feel like continuing anyway. ;P
And Hi.

Well golly gee, I would think that in a thread discussing a particularly large fine, discussions as to whether such a fine is justified or just would be completely on topic to a discussion on the aforementioned fine.

Sort of like in a fruit thread where the focus is on a particular fruit, and you keep bringing up another one - and also one that has nothing to do with the fruit at hand?

Or, funny enough, you didn't seem to have any problems with anyone else discussing their agreement with such scaling fines, or the off topic nature of which, and only seem to pull out your "well you're off topic!" bullshit once someone posted a disagreeing point.

What you posted doesn't even count as a "disagreeing point" on what I was supporting, because what you posted is completely irrelevant to what I support. It's sort of like you attacking a papier-mâché Carl Bildt when I mention that I liked Anna Lindh. Sure, attack him all you want - he still won't be Anna Lindh.

Which makes one wonder why you are so sensitive and hyperactive when exposed to viewpoints that differ from your own.

Oh well, it's not my fault if you managed to get your little pink panties in a bunch because oh my god someone actually disagrees with you, you're free to stomp your feet, plug your ears and yell IM NOT LISTENING!!!! all you want in the face of someone who doesn't think you're right (big blow to the ego, I"m sure).

However, if you insist on throwing such a temper tantrum, may I suggest coming up with a response a little more...shall we say, intellectually advanced than the equivalent of "oh yeah? well you're a doodyhead!"

Ah, and now you try to somehow involve my person, as if it had anything to do with relative pecuniary punishments - you remember, the actual topic of the thread and what I was talking about? Of course you don't. You're too busy flinging the fallacies around, and now you're just upset that you're not successful with them. Still has nothing to do with relative pecuniary punishments.

And I think that taking a consideration, ANY consideration, other than the criminal act committed, in determining the punishment, is an anathma to the concept of ordered justice.

You can disagree if you want, feel free. Or you can be obnoxious and snarky because you can't manage any reasoned response other than "nuh uh" as some other posters have managed.

Though, you are, of course, free to disagree.

And notice I did say criminal acts. Civil law is, as I said, an entirely different animal, and is the proper medium for such things as punitive damages. The criminal field, however, should care about one thing and one thing only. The criminal act committed. Anything else is fundamentally opposed to justice.

I hope I'm not being obnoxious and snarky. Well sometimes I do, but only in retaliation to obnoxiousness.

I see what you are saying and I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I like the idea of heavier fines for the rich so that a fine that might hurt a poor person will not be a laughable slap on the wrist for someone with buttloads of cash. I am not pretending that I know anything about anything regarding the effectiveness of legal punishments; just voicing my personal opinion about the effect of fines in relation to deterrence/perceived severity of punishments.

I have no problem with you taking a contrary position either and hope I didn't come off that way. I was just commenting on how I finally found something I don't side with you on.

OK, before I head to sleep, let me come up with perhaps a better example. What we're talking about, basically, is deterent. A proportionatly small fine to a rich person is not a deterent, I think we can agree to that.

However, a punishment functions as a deterent through two means. First, the magnitude of the punishment. Second, the likelihood that the punishment will be carried out.

If a crime carries a punishment of death, however the police are incompetant and there is almost no chance what so ever you will be caught, is this a deterrent? No, not really. the magnitude of the punishment is very very high, but the likelihood of it being carried out is very very small. So...not very much a deterrent.

Now let's take a crime...robbery, let's say. Imagine it carries five years in jail. Now, of course, we can say that the magnitude of this punishment is the same regardless of who you are. 5 years in jail is 5 years in jail, the magnitude of the punishment remains the same.

BUT, as we all know, if you're rich, you can hire better lawyers, and the odds of you actually getting convicted go down. I'm sure we can all agree that money, on average, means you have less chance of going to jail.

Now, if there is a 100% chance that if you commit robbery you will spend 5 years in jail, but there is a 50% chance that I will be convicted, that 5 years may well be less of a deterrent to me, I'm less likely to actually be punished, because I have more money.

So by this very same logic, if the punishment should act as a deterrent, but the rich aren't as deterred, we should increase prison sentences for the rich, to deter them equally.

OK, before I head to sleep, let me come up with perhaps a better example. What we're talking about, basically, is deterent. A proportionatly small fine to a rich person is not a deterent, I think we can agree to that.

However, a punishment functions as a deterent through two means. First, the magnitude of the punishment. Second, the likelihood that the punishment will be carried out.

If a crime carries a punishment of death, however the police are incompetant and there is almost no chance what so ever you will be caught, is this a deterrent? No, not really. the magnitude of the punishment is very very high, but the likelihood of it being carried out is very very small. So...not very much a deterrent.

Now let's take a crime...robbery, let's say. Imagine it carries five years in jail. Now, of course, we can say that the magnitude of this punishment is the same regardless of who you are. 5 years in jail is 5 years in jail, the magnitude of the punishment remains the same.

BUT, as we all know, if you're rich, you can hire better lawyers, and the odds of you actually getting convicted go down. I'm sure we can all agree that money, on average, means you have less chance of going to jail.

Now, if there is a 100% chance that if you commit robbery you will spend 5 years in jail, but there is a 50% chance that I will be convicted, that 5 years may well be less of a deterrent to me, I'm less likely to actually be punished, because I have more money.

So by this very same logic, if the punishment should act as a deterrent, but the rich aren't as deterred, we should increase prison sentences for the rich, to deter them equally.
No.

What you're talking about isn't that 5 years in prison are easier for a rich guy than a poor guy to stomach and hence we should increase it to 10 for the rich guy (which would be the analogy you're looking for).

What you're talking about is that because of flaws in the system the rich guy can avoid his 5 years more easily than the poor guy. No analogy. Just a flawed system. ;)

I.e. it's not the fault of the penalty that the rich guy might be less deterred, it's the fault of the system. If you would raise the penalty for the rich guy to 20 years, he'd STILL be able to weasel out of it more easily than the poor guy would be to weasel out of his 5 years.

So by this very same logic, if the punishment should act as a deterrent, but the rich aren't as deterred, we should increase prison sentences for the rich, to deter them equally.Before you begin on more lovely up-is-down rants, how about just doing something about the problem you're describing. In your own words, the punishment isn't the problem. The legal procedings are.

What you're suggesting is sort of like hitting yourself in the face with a hammer, because you can't stand the pain in your toe. I mean, I'm sure it'll work somewhat, but doesn't actually address the problem.

I have to agree. The Finnish minority in Sweden isn't near as big as is the Swedish one in Finland. The only difference between Swedish and Finnish state officials for me is that in Sweden I could end up waiting for ahile before they'll provide me an official speaking Finnish. In Finland officials are required to speak Swedish also.

This needs correction. According to Wikipedia, 5,5% of Finland's population are Swedish-speakers. Of Sweden's population, 4,7% speak Finnish, and 1,7% speak Meänkieli (which is often considered a dialect of Finnish, depending on the source). Either way, there's not much of a difference.

I'm in no way saying that the position of Finnish in Sweden should be elevated to the same level that Swedish enjoys in Finland, because that would be just retarded. I'm just saying that Swedish' position here could stand a little pruning.

Sensation is everything.
Hypothetical situation -

I enjoy raping underage nuns, with learning disabilities, after breaking into their homes by using the decapitated heads of their parentals as projectiles to crack their windows to allow entry instead of simply picking the door open.



In the land of Blessed Christopia, is this ok because I enjoy it?

I want to be a Finnish millionaire. Or billionaire. Oh, and not Finnish, really. Actually, just making €24,000 a month would be fine.
Just keep in mind that Finland is essentially the Baltic version of Poland. Everyone around it mocks its sovereignty, and with good reason.

You can have your 24,000 Euros a month until Sweden and/or Russia, or possibly Estonia, get up on the wrong side of bed and decide they own you, in which case you have to give up everything but your sauna, your silence, and your utterly unstoppable hatred of foreign rule of Finland.

Just keep in mind that Finland is essentially the Baltic version of Poland. Everyone around it mocks its sovereignty, and with good reason.

You can have your 24,000 Euros a month until Sweden and/or Russia, or possibly Estonia, get up on the wrong side of bed and decide they own you, in which case you have to give up everything but your sauna, your silence, and your utterly unstoppable hatred of foreign rule of Finland.

1. Poland is the Baltic version of Poland.

2. When, pray tell, was the last time Finland lost its sovereignty?

It is quite a significant percentage of his earnings to be honest. I wouldn't compare it to giving away a dime

In that case, I'd say it's exorbitant. But the idea itself sounds fairly reasonable.

Driving fast may be fun. But there are places you can go to experience the thrill of speed. You do not own the public highways in any way, shape or form. A driver's use of public highways is a privilege and not a right.

To recklessly disregard the safety of other users of the roads and streets is highly disrespectful and should be punished with such severity.

At ~70kmph he could have easily killed a child going to or leaving school.

Driving at such speeds in front of a school is not acceptable.

Depends when it is done. If it is done outside school hours, I see no good reason why one should not drive as fast as suits.

Hypothetical situation -

I enjoy raping underage nuns, with learning disabilities, after breaking into their homes by using the decapitated heads of their parentals as projectiles to crack their windows to allow entry instead of simply picking the door open.



In the land of Blessed Christopia, is this ok because I enjoy it?

We don't have nuns.

In any case, just because I'm self-absorped doesn't mean you're allowed to be.;)

Ouch! That must have burnt a bit. I know it would me... but I find myself thinking, that's actually the way it supposed to be! Fines should be felt, and it is equitable in a sense that the affluent not be immune to fines as their pecuniary situation might otherwise entail. Then again, I'd really hate to be on the receiving end. :\

This is freaking evil.

You(not personally you, fassigen) are saying that, for the exact same crime, people should be fined more solely on the fact that they are more successful.

Yes, I know that rich people then would not feel it as much, but that's why it is great to be rich. duh.

You punish the successful for being successful, for your own benefit, because you are not successful.

And saying that it should apply to people who didn't earn their wealth doesn't work for your argument. You can't 'decide' weather someone earned it, unless it was inheritance or something similar. And then you are whining like a little kid because "Johnny got a better present than me and life's not fair!"

This is freaking evil.

You(not personally you, fassigen) are saying that, for the exact same crime, people should be fined more solely on the fact that they are more successful.

Yes, I know that rich people then would not feel it as much, but that's why it is great to be rich. duh.

You punish the successful for being successful, for your own benefit, because you are not successful.

And saying that it should apply to people who didn't earn their wealth doesn't work for your argument. You can't 'decide' weather someone earned it, unless it was inheritance or something similar. And then you are whining like a little kid because "Johnny got a better present than me and life's not fair!"

So you're saying because someones earned more money, then they should be able to not give a damn about the law?

A £50 fine is nothing for someone that earns millions, whereas to someone scraping by, it's huge. Fines are meant to be a deterrent, how does that work if it doesn't impact the person whatsoever?

So you're saying because someones earned more money, then they should be able to not give a damn about the law?

A £50 fine is nothing for someone that earns millions, whereas to someone scraping by, it's huge. Fines are meant to be a deterrent, how does that work if it doesn't impact the person whatsoever?

Because they did $50 worth of work, and so did the poor person who got fined $50. The rich person did more or better work though, so has a greater total sum of money.

They both lose the same thing. Adjusting the fine on money would be like adjusting a sentence on age. Like a twenty year old gets 20 years for murder, but a 50 year old gets 50 years, so it is a 'percentage of your life.' Maybe this shows you how ridiculous it is - twenty years is twenty years weather you are older or not. Just like $50 is $50 weather you are rich or not.

Ouch! That must have burnt a bit. I know it would me... but I find myself thinking, that's actually the way it supposed to be! Fines should be felt, and it is equitable in a sense that the affluent not be immune to fines as their pecuniary situation might otherwise entail. Then again, I'd really hate to be on the receiving end. :\
Fuck! Mind you, 30km/h over is actually quite a speed to be exceeding the limit, though in the same regard, it is because it was a school zone that he would have actually been considered to have been speeding (i.e. 60km/h is standard street speed in most places).

This topic actually came up yesterday whilst my friend was driving, we noticed that a lot of school zones are getting flashing electric signs put up to warn drivers when it is a school zone, and when it is not (i.e. 8-4 Mon Fri, excluding public holidays). We praised the idea, citing that it isn't really fair to expect people to keep track of such a dynamic speed limit.

On the topic of income geared fines? Despite my usual economic liberalism, this is a good idea. What is the point of a fine system if it doesn't discourage a certain demographic of drivers? Mind you, the aforementioned fine is rather excessive, unless of course the finnish man behind the wheel was indeed incontinentally rich. The way to do it is to calcualate the existing fines as a ratio matched against the minimum wage, the push the fine up to match the income tax brackets median point. That way, whatever tax bracket you fall under also dictates you 'fine' bracket. It shouldn't be limited to speeding fines either.

My dad was telling me about this speeding fine system in Finland before. It strikes me as sensible, it's stupid that here a billionaire gets exactly the same fine as somebody on minimum wage. Fines need to hit people in their pockets, it's no good if a few of them effectively get away with it because their pockets are deeper. It would be the same as anyone else paying a penny.

Because they did $50 worth of work, and so did the poor person who got fined $50. The rich person did more or better work though, so has a greater total sum of money. The point isn't to take away a consistent amount, (i.e. to 'pay' for the crime as much as it is 'worth'), the point is to penalise the crime so as to discourage it. As such, the priority is to ensure everyone is *penalised* equally, being the primary purpose of the fine. It matters not how much everyone *pays*, as this is a relative matter.

They both lose the same thing. Adjusting the fine on money would be like adjusting a sentence on age. Like a twenty year old gets 20 years for murder, but a 50 year old gets 50 years, so it is a 'percentage of your life.' Maybe this shows you how ridiculous it is - twenty years is twenty years weather you are older or not. Just like $50 is $50 weather you are rich or not. This is inane.

Yes, I know that rich people then would not feel it as much, but that's why it is great to be rich. duh. Even under such a system, it is still great to be rich. Consider this. Someone who earns $20 000 a year gets fined $500 and is left with $19 500. Some one who earns 200 000 a year gets fined $5000 and is left with $195 000. The poor guy is left with $19 500, the rich guy is left with $195 000. It is still good to be rich.

You punish the successful for being successful, for your own benefit, because you are not successful.
No you punish the everyone irrespective of their success, because that is what a speeding fine is for. It has nothing to do with success, or lack thereof, or even the benefit of the accumulated fines. You don't fine people to steal from the rich, you fine people for breaking the law- to discourage them from doing so.

Ouch! That must have burnt a bit. I know it would me... but I find myself thinking, that's actually the way it supposed to be! Fines should be felt, and it is equitable in a sense that the affluent not be immune to fines as their pecuniary situation might otherwise entail. Then again, I'd really hate to be on the receiving end. :\
Should it? I disagree, I believe the law should apply equally to all who break it; that one's personal finances, appearance, social or political position, etc. should not have anything to do with crime and punishment. Would you scar a pretty face for shoplifting a designer purse but let a plain woman pay a fine? Would you force a smart man to wear earphones that constantly play distracting noise so that he could not outperform the stupid? Would you sow weights into a slight or strong man's skin so that he could not outrun the obese? True equality can only be achieved through equal treatment.

Some people in this thread are arguing that the rich get fined more then the poor under the finnish system. They obviously didnt read the articles posted on this topic, the guy got fined 30 workdays of income, which is the exact same as a poor person would have gotten.
It just means that he loses more money.

On a side note, in my opinion someone doing more then double the speed limit should lose their drivers license, they clearly state: governement: you made laws about driving, and you can shove em where the sun dont shine.

You do not own the public highways in any way, shape or form.

Ummm.... no. As a memebr of the public you part own the public highways.

Should it? I disagree, I believe the law should apply equally to all who break it; that one's personal finances, appearance, social or political position, etc. should not have anything to do with crime and punishment. Would you scar a pretty face for shoplifting a designer purse but let a plain woman pay a fine? Would you force a smart man to wear earphones that constantly play distracting noise so that he could not outperform the stupid? Would you sow weights into a slight or strong man's skin so that he could not outrun the obese? True equality can only be achieved through equal treatment.
No, true equality (under law) can only be achieved by taking into considering all aggravating and/or mitigating factors just as a judge or magistrate must do, including economic conditions. The law isn't fair if one guy gets a speeding ticket and that means they can't pay for his children's dinner, while a slick rich guy gets it and pays it out of pocket change inconsequential to him. The punishment must be proportional to the offense and the factors of the individual, and if the punishment is monetary then economic factors are top priority for setting that fine. Ideally if political and economic equality where the same, the judge or legislation would give no heed to economic factors as they are non-existent, unfortunately this is not the case.

Also, I do not consider speeding or other road-related offenses negligible, when you consider the amounts of deaths and injuries on the roads you would agree.

I would imagine they have a minimum.

Why need a minimum?
It would still sting the same amount.

The point isn't to take away a consistent amount, (i.e. to 'pay' for the crime as much as it is 'worth'), the point is to penalise the crime so as to discourage it.
That's two different views of the law.

He takes a CSE-type view in which law should be modelled to be economically efficient. And in that case, it makes no sense to punish the same crime differently for different people.

And I didn't feel that his example was inane. It's the same principle, afterall, if you've got 70 years of living left surely a 5 year sentence is peanuts, right?

On a side note, in my opinion someone doing more then double the speed limit should lose their drivers license, they clearly state: governement: you made laws about driving, and you can shove em where the sun dont shine.
And that is wrong because...of course, the government is the all-knowing messiah. It sets speed limits according to divine truthiness rather than it just being some lazy guy in an office marking bits on a map virtually at random.

Fact: Speed doesn't cause accidents, speed differences do.
Fact: Statistically your risk of an accident is higher when you exceed the speed limit - but it's the same thing if you go slower than the limit. Yet no one loses their license for going half the speed limit.
Fact: Introductions of state-wide speed limits have not decreased accidents.
Fact: Unrestricted sections of the Autobahn don't see more accidents than restricted ones.
Fact: A Ferrari stops in a fraction of the distance an old Ford would need. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits.
Fact: A good driver with decent reaction times prevents an accident at the same speed that would see a lesser driver crash. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits.
Fact: The speed that can be driven on a road also depends on the weather and the time of day. Speed limits don't.

So yeah, the government made the law. Doesn't mean it's any good.

Uhm, If I were "filthy rich", the fine would be much, much higher. Remember, "based on income" means that the fine rises with your income. For instance, this guy was given 50 "dagsböter", which literally means "day fine". Since he had declared his income for the previous year as being €290 000, his daily income was somehow calculated to have been €415 (don't ask me how*). Times 50...

... so, imagine if one made €2 500 000. Being "filthy rich" wouldn't preclude this from really stinging, which is the point.
up to a point. A person making 2.5 mill is more likely to have the equivalent of 50 days pay in their bank a/c than a person on minimum wage and thus is better able to afford a 50 "dagsböter".

I don't really like this type of fining. It's a good idea in some ways - fitting the fine to the person's income - but there does come a point where the fine amount becomes ridiculous for the crime committed.

I'd prefer to see a rich guy made to work the fine off by doing charity work with poor/homeless people - in a soup kitchen, for eg. Have them come face-2-face with those they'd prob never meet.
That and a pretty substantial fine. Substantial but not obscene.


(*the only thing I can think off re: €415 /day for a €290k income is that they took it after tax and divvied it by 365 days - assuming tax is 48%)

Should it? I disagree, I believe the law should apply equally to all who break it; that one's personal finances, appearance, social or political position, etc. should not have anything to do with crime and punishment. Would you scar a pretty face for shoplifting a designer purse but let a plain woman pay a fine? Would you force a smart man to wear earphones that constantly play distracting noise so that he could not outperform the stupid? Would you sow weights into a slight or strong man's skin so that he could not outrun the obese? True equality can only be achieved through equal treatment. Thats silly, you are completely shifting the axis of punishment. A fine is a monetary disincentive to commit crime. It makes sense to gear it in such a way that it would maintain it's purpose of providing a monetary disincentive to all offenders. To not do so is to allow the fine to fail in it's original purpose. You may as well literally slap the incontinentally rich on the wrist rather than fining them a pittance- it would make no difference to them.

meh, screw the fine, just jack up the tax rates on his private equity every time he is caught.

Some people in this thread are arguing that the rich get fined more then the poor under the finnish system. They obviously didnt read the articles posted on this topic, the guy got fined 30 workdays of income, which is the exact same as a poor person would have gotten.
It just means that he loses more money.

On a side note, in my opinion someone doing more then double the speed limit should lose their drivers license, they clearly state: governement: you made laws about driving, and you can shove em where the sun dont shine. It is easy to go double the speed limit in a 30 zone when the regular speed is 60 anyway. This is why I was saying it really should be marked clearly when it is a school zone and when it isn't.

Fact: Speed doesn't cause accidents, speed differences do.
Fact: Statistically your risk of an accident is higher when you exceed the speed limit - but it's the same thing if you go slower than the limit. Yet no one loses their license for going half the speed limit.
Fact: Introductions of state-wide speed limits have not decreased accidents.
Fact: Unrestricted sections of the Autobahn don't see more accidents than restricted ones.
Fact: A Ferrari stops in a fraction of the distance an old Ford would need. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits.
Fact: A good driver with decent reaction times prevents an accident at the same speed that would see a lesser driver crash. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits.
Fact: The speed that can be driven on a road also depends on the weather and the time of day. Speed limits don't.

So yeah, the government made the law. Doesn't mean it's any good.
You missed:
Fact: your survival rate in an accident drops exponentially as you go faster.

I really like this idea when applied to fines, but not so much when applied to taxing.

That's two different views of the law.

He takes a CSE-type view in which law should be modelled to be economically efficient. And in that case, it makes no sense to punish the same crime differently for different people. Personally, I find this to be losing the actual relevance of the law in the first place (law being something I hold a disdain for as it is- I find it quite amusing that I am in this position). You don't fine things for the economic efficiency's sake, nor for it's own sake in and of itself. Fines exist as a disincentive, and they fail as such should such a disincentive not affect certain people. Incidentally, this theoretical debate is actully irrelevant in prcticality, as the big wigs have already stepped around this problem by introducing a 'points' system to licencing. Under the points system, everyone suffers the same disincentive (risk to their permission to drie). Ultimately it is an easier and better way anyhow, and I think I would actully prefer speeding fines to be abolished as expropriation, in favor of compartively fair barring of offender's licence (i.e. "You broke our rules, so don't use our road" makes sense, whereas "You broke our rules, pay us money" does not).

I was merely remarking that in reference to fines, it really does make sense to gear the fine to income. To do otherwise is to forget the ctual purpose of the fine.

And I didn't feel that his example was inane. It's the same principle, afterall, if you've got 70 years of living left surely a 5 year sentence is peanuts, right? Well, he actually said the opposite (i.e. the older you are the more you pay), but forget that, the whole thing is bunk in that time, or life for that matter, is not a liquid commodity like money. The whole thing is invalid simply on that.

If this sort of system were ever instituted in the States, I can see the lawsuits now - people claiming that they were "economically profiled." Two cars exceeding the speed limit by the same amount, but the nicer car being pulled over (in order to get a higher fine)...

The 30 workday fine seems a bit excessive in my mind. For me, this would end up being just under $9k for the fine. For speeding. I'd much rather see a loss of license than fines that could potentially break some people financially...

Why need a minimum?
It would still sting the same amount.

Not really, the income estimate used on fining doesn't include social support or certain other forms of income (usually in the low end).

It still hurts the poor more, though.

We've no reason to have it have the same standing Swedish has in Finland
I'm not saying that you have to, I'm just saying that the condensing and demeaning attitude towards by far the largest linguistic minority (~5% of general population which is coincidentally about the same as the number of Swedish speakers in Finland) is rather appalling.

From what I gather the availability of Finnish language education has fallen steadily over the last decade or so even if the ratio of finnish speakers has remained roughly the same.

The attitude of some is well represented by a recent incident where some lower division football players - from a Haparanda team (majority Finnish speaking municipality) - were ejected from the pitch for speaking their native language.




Returning to topic...20,500€ speeding ticket is nothing (owld njews link):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.

Police say he was driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone.

I'm not saying that you have to, I'm just saying that the condensing and demeaning attitude towards by far the largest linguistic minority (~5% of general population which is coincidentally about the same as the number of Swedish speakers in Finland) is rather appalling.

It's also quite imagined on your part.

From what I gather the availability of Finnish language education has fallen steadily over the last decade or so even if the ratio of finnish speakers has remained roughly the same.

Nonsense. All Finnish-speaking pupils in Swedish schools have the right to hemspråksundervisning if they want it.

The attitude of some is well represented by a recent incident where some lower division football players - from a Haparanda team (majority Finnish speaking municipality) - were ejected from the pitch for speaking their native language.

Quite the anecdotal anecdote.

up to a point. A person making 2.5 mill is more likely to have the equivalent of 50 days pay in their bank a/c than a person on minimum wage and thus is better able to afford a 50 "dagsböter".

I don't really like this type of fining. It's a good idea in some ways - fitting the fine to the person's income - but there does come a point where the fine amount becomes ridiculous for the crime committed.

I'd prefer to see a rich guy made to work the fine off by doing charity work with poor/homeless people - in a soup kitchen, for eg. Have them come face-2-face with those they'd prob never meet.
That and a pretty substantial fine. Substantial but not obscene.


(*the only thing I can think off re: €415 /day for a €290k income is that they took it after tax and divvied it by 365 days - assuming tax is 48%)I don't even see why you need a penalty other than licence points being deducted. The rest is just shameless fundraising. You are breaking the rules of the road, so they can feel free to limit your access to it- just like a business owner can require certain terms or refue service. But who has the right to demand money? Imagine i you went to a skating rink, and skated the wrong way around the rink, then the owner gave you a ticket for $500. You'd tell him to sod off. I don't see why it should be any different with roads.

Nonsense. All Finnish-speaking pupils in Swedish schools have the right to hemspråksundervisning if they want it.That's not how it is represented here.

...or there:
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/sisuradio/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=1358181

Quite the anecdotal anecdote.The particular newsbit made it even to Expressen (at least according to a local newspaper) :p

edit:
Relatively speaking they're well off as a language minority (compared to eg. Russian treatment) but absolutely things could be a lot better, especially the requirements for qualifying for Finnish education are ridiculous (according to the above link).

Then again, I'd really hate to be on the receiving end. :\

Liar!:p

Just keep in mind that Finland is essentially the Baltic version of Poland. Everyone around it mocks its sovereignty, and with good reason.

You can have your 24,000 Euros a month until Sweden and/or Russia, or possibly Estonia, get up on the wrong side of bed and decide they own you, in which case you have to give up everything but your sauna, your silence, and your utterly unstoppable hatred of foreign rule of Finland.
Aww. I thought Finland was essentially the North American version of the Belarus.

You missed:
Fact: your survival rate in an accident drops exponentially as you go faster.
Let that be my worry.

And besides, my survival rate is also higher if I drive an S-Class Merc as opposed to a '60s Datsun. It also is for anyone else I might crash into. Still, the same speed limit for everyone.

Personally, I find this to be losing the actual relevance of the law in the first place (law being something I hold a disdain for as it is- I find it quite amusing that I am in this position). You don't fine things for the economic efficiency's sake, nor for it's own sake in and of itself. Fines exist as a disincentive, and they fail as such should such a disincentive not affect certain people.
But say the damage done by the guy was E(d) = 2% * $1,000,000 = $20,000

Now the fine is $20,500. So the fine exceeds the damage done to society. We've made the place $500 worse off than it was before. How is that a good thing?

Ultimately it is an easier and better way anyhow, and I think I would actully prefer speeding fines to be abolished as expropriation, in favor of compartively fair barring of offender's licence (i.e. "You broke our rules, so don't use our road" makes sense, whereas "You broke our rules, pay us money" does not).
But then they wouldn't be able to earn money. I mean here in QLD, when you seriously break the speed limit (+30km/h or something) it's either and instaban or a fine of more than a thousand dollars.

I mean, if you think it's serious enough to warrant taking the guy off the road, how does it make sense to give him the option of paying his way out of it?

Someone needs to employ an economist to work over the speed limit system. Police and bureaucrats should be following orders, not making up their own.

Well, he actually said the opposite (i.e. the older you are the more you pay), but forget that, the whole thing is bunk in that time, or life for that matter, is not a liquid commodity like money. The whole thing is invalid simply on that.
How do you figure?

I mean, if you think it's serious enough to warrant taking the guy off the road, how does it make sense to give him the option of paying his way out of it?
Don't worry, the guy is off of the road after breaking the traffic code like that. There's no way of him to carry on driving after
that - for some time.

But say the damage done by the guy was E(d) = 2% * $1,000,000 = $20,000

Now the fine is $20,500. So the fine exceeds the damage done to society. We've made the place $500 worse off than it was before. How is that a good thing? Again, you aren't trying to compensate the damage done to society. Otherwise you could just let people tie their Credit card to their driving habits, and let them pay for however they want to drive (funny idea, actually). The point of the fine is to form a disincentive. If it isn't succeeding at that, then it fails in it's purpose. The only way to get a fine to succeed as a disincentive is to gear the fine to the income of the recipient. But as said, I don't actually believe in fines anyhow. Just speaking in terms of logic.

But then they wouldn't be able to earn money. I mean here in QLD, when you seriously break the speed limit (+30km/h or something) it's either and instaban or a fine of more than a thousand dollars. Oh you cynical old dog, are you suggesting traffic fines are fundraisers for the government?! :eek: Well, in principle they aren't, but yes, in practicality they are. However, to that, I give my finger. How about they don't source their income from expropriation?

I mean, if you think it's serious enough to warrant taking the guy off the road, how does it make sense to give him the option of paying his way out of it? 'Option' being the key word here. If you have a choice, it isn't so bad, but compulsory fines are simply legitimate robberies. "You broke our rules, so stop using our road- or purchase amnesty" No force.

Someone needs to employ an economist to work over the speed limit system. Police and bureaucrats should be following orders, not making up their own. Someone needs to employ an economist.


How do you figure? Well, in the most basic sense, time and life are not earned or exchanged like liquid capital. It is intrinsic and nontransferable.

Again, you aren't trying to compensate the damage done to society. [...] The point of the fine is to form a disincentive.
And what good does a disincentive do if it bears no relation to the damage done to society?

Putting every smoker to death would be a great disincentive, but that doesn't make it good policy. Indeed, it's quite feasible that the happiness people derive from smoking outweigh the damages done to society because of it, in which case a law against it would be a bad idea in the first place.

Well, in the most basic sense, time and life are not earned or exchanged like liquid capital. It is intrinsic and nontransferable.
Well, you're the one speaking about disincentives. For something to be a disincentive it doesn't necessarily have to be transferred to someone else, it can simply be taken away and destroyed.

What sort of disincentive is 'life in jail' for someone who is about to die from cancer? And by the same logic, what is it for someone who is 80 as opposed to someone who is 20?

Or, to turn that around, what sort of disincentive is 5 years in jail to someone who is 80 and someone who is 20?

It's exactly the same principle as income-dependent fines. Yet I see few people advocate age- or health-dependent jail terms.

That's two different views of the law.

He takes a CSE-type view in which law should be modelled to be economically efficient. And in that case, it makes no sense to punish the same crime differently for different people.

And I didn't feel that his example was inane. It's the same principle, afterall, if you've got 70 years of living left surely a 5 year sentence is peanuts, right?


And that is wrong because...of course, the government is the all-knowing messiah. It sets speed limits according to divine truthiness rather than it just being some lazy guy in an office marking bits on a map virtually at random.

Fact: Speed doesn't cause accidents, speed differences do. correct, the higher your speed, the greater the difference with pedestrians/cyclists and objects at the side of the road.

Fact: The higher your speed, the greater the injuries for pedestrians/cyclists you hit.

Fact: Statistically your risk of an accident is higher when you exceed the speed limit - but it's the same thing if you go slower than the limit. Yet no one loses their license for going half the speed limit. In the netherlands at least, the highways DO have a minimum speed limit

Fact: Introductions of state-wide speed limits have not decreased accidents.
Fact: Unrestricted sections of the Autobahn don't see more accidents than restricted ones.
Fact: A Ferrari stops in a fraction of the distance an old Ford would need. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits. Much more important then performance of the car you drive, is the reaction times of the person driving
Fact: A good driver with decent reaction times prevents an accident at the same speed that would see a lesser driver crash. Yet both have to adhere to the same limits.
Fact: The speed that can be driven on a road also depends on the weather and the time of day. Speed limits don't.
- In some countries the max speed limit IS lowered in bad weather. Time of day matters less, during rush hour, it's practically impossible to even get to the speed limit, let alone exeed it. During night time, the traffic means you could drive faster safely, but the lessened visibility means you should drive slower.





So yeah, the government made the law. Doesn't mean it's any good.

True, but you can get the law changed instead of simply ignoring it.


@GPN": Ofcourse speed limits should be clearly marked at all places and times. Ofcourse its also easier to go double the speed limit if the speed limit is lower, but the limit is lower for a reason (in this case, a school district) therefore i think that *double* is a good measurement for revoking drivers licenses.

And what good does a disincentive do if it bears no relation to the damage done to society? It disencourages the damage. What else is there to say, obviously there should be a casual connection between the damage to society and how strongly you wish you disencourage the activity, yet this connection does not equate to a transformation of the fine into a social compensation tool. No, fines are a disincentive in essence and function. They are not at all fashioned toward social compensation, and linked only casually in manifestation to social damage whatsoever.

Putting every smoker to death would be a great disincentive, but that doesn't make it good policy. Indeed, it's quite feasible that the happiness people derive from smoking outweigh the damages done to society because of it, in which case a law against it would be a bad idea in the first place. Indeed, and rewarding blind men with fish may act as an incentive for visual impairment, yet does one want to encourage such things?


Well, you're the one speaking about disincentives. For something to be a disincentive it doesn't necessarily have to be transferred to someone else, it can simply be taken away and destroyed.
Yes, but I was remarking on the invalidity of his analogy comparing money to time/life. It is a false analogy, a blatant one too. It matter not whether it is or is not a disincentive, but rather the relevance of his terms of his comparison.
What sort of disincentive is 'life in jail' for someone who is about to die from cancer? And by the same logic, what is it for someone who is 80 as opposed to someone who is 20?
Or, to turn that around, what sort of disincentive is 5 years in jail to someone who is 80 and someone who is 20?

It's exactly the same principle as income-dependent fines. Yet I see few people advocate age- or health-dependent jail terms. This is an unintentional red herring on your behalf, I believe. I agree there is a common principle, that of geared disincentives, however that is not relevant in the comparison of the two fundamentally different mediums of disincentive. Using imprisonment as a disincentive for crime comes with a whole new set of rational axioms, given the inherently different nature of lifetime as compared to money.

Again I find myself being placed in an unusual position; that of arguing the hypothetical rationality of a position I don't support on other terms. That is, yes, should you fine, this is the rational way of doing it- yet I disagree with the entire premise anyhow. I personally prefer the 'use it properly, or not at all' system, wherein those who break the rules of a system are banned from it's use (possibly with a voluntary economic penalty to offset exclusion). Such as being banned from driving on the roads whose rules you break, or being banned from living in an area whose laws you cannot follow.

Imprisonment is something I have always had a conceptual problem with. My entire mindset is against it, yet it is hard to dodge. I cannot actually justify imprisoning somebody without contradicting myself.