Finnish justice system strikes again!

[laurentius]

Shouldnt you be sleeping, troll?

[Urban Ranger]

I think this is a great system.

Applying a flat amount doesn't work against people with truckloads of $. Applying a flat percentage does.

[Pekka]

No, well I say Justice System sucks, but the actual how it works is not bad, and I think it's good. Like I said, we're all pretty equal in criminal courts etc.

But the decisions sucks horrible butts, and that's because of the scale they have.

You can go all statistics if you want to though. If you say 'drunk driving is not a problem' or that 'drunk driving is a worse problem in foreign coutnries' hey, that's even more cynicism from your part. The situation with drunk driving IS horrible here. 20 000 might have been caught, but remember we don't have wide traffic police thing going on ala highway patrol. If we had that, we'd get 200 000 per year or more.

[Pekka]

Hey I read those quoted parts. you know that's complete BS. YOu k now that is not how it is, so you claim I'm imagining these things?

drunk drivers going for prison?

Heavy fines?

Excellent survaillance?

Jeesh I mean what ever.

[Itse Perkele]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not sure what you mean here.

Are you trying to say I'm rich?

Sorry. Not you (Or how do I know ). But the one who got fined.

[East Street Trader]

Leaving how to quantify fines aside Finland certainly seems to take driving safeguards seriously.

Pekka thinks this lies poorly with a liberal attitude towards serious crime.

But I am not so sure.

If you compare the numbers of people killed and injured on the roads to the number killed and injured in serious crimes roads outscore crimes pretty heavily.

I remember acting for the family of a little girl knocked down and killed as she crossed the road to her home after being dropped by the school bus. Her mother was prostrate with grief and had still not come out of her room when my involvement ended some months later. I really do not see how she could have been more distressed had her daughter been mown down by a gun toting criminal than she was. And certainly the victim of a car accident is just as dead as the victim of a serious crime.

It is notoriously difficult to deter serious crime merely by concentrating on detection and sentence. Whereas strict enforcement of the standards imposed by law on drivers does feed directly through to improved safety on the roads.

I have never seen any statistics comparing number and severity of accident where a lax approach is taken to speed limits and number and severity of accident where a strict approach is followed. But instinct suggests to me that there would be a difference. There are figures on drunk driving because local initiatives often change police priorities for a time. Such campaigns to enforce drink driving provisions always impact on figures for death and injury on the road.

[laurentius]

Pekka, all I show was that you have absolutely no backing for your claims. According to the statistics drunk driving isnt such a huge problem as you make it look like. If your friends or people you know drink and drive a lot it doesnt mean everybody does. I mean think about it, why would site like päihdelinkki want to make things look better than they are. They have no motive for such thing.

Its good to be critical of course but making false claims and just blatant lies is something youd better leave to the obvious trollers here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
If you compare the numbers of people killed and injured on the roads to the number killed and injured in serious crimes roads outscore crimes pretty heavily.

You know what's worse? Tobacco. In the US, tobacco-related deaths is about 10 times that of deaths caused by car accidents.

[Gilgamensch]

Just a few things from my side:

1.) Speeding, me thinks, isn't a problem. Before being bashed: In Germany there are (normally) no speed limits on the highway/motorway and far less accidents than in countries with speed-limits. It is again simple: If you know somebody might be coming from the back with 200+km/h you check twice your mirrors. But when you have speed-limits people kind of ignore that somebody might be trying to overtake them (personal experience throughout the world).

2.) For the fine: Sounds quite OK for me. % of income, fair and easy. No hazzle no struggle with laywers.........Have seen to many reports (especially US) where the rich one with a good one get's off. (like recently on black singer IIRC, got off for DUI with 2 days of jail and having 2 the limit). And why having an upper limit for the fine? You earned so much, you pay so much. If you lost your license as a rich guy, just employ a few drivers for you

[Pekka]

laurentius, I still claim that we have a BAD problem with drunk drivers. If you claim otherwise, hey, by all means. From population of 5 million, if 20 000 get caught every year, and naturally even more of those are never caught, hey, I say it's a HUGE problem. It's mostly an attitude problem though.

Furthermore, if you agree that drunk drivers get fitting punishments, then I have to disagree. Getting fined for drunk driving and never seeing jail is horrible. If it's a little above the limist and person is seemingly in condition, then fine will be ok I think if it is his/her first time and there was no visible danger when was caught, but if there's anything else to the story, I say jail time is in order. Not just one night because you can't continue driving, I say a month or two will do good. Second timers, they can go and actually go inside the prison for that time.

If someone is rich, and has to pay 170 000 for speeding, and someone makes less money but still OK income, drunk drives, and psosibly wrecks few cars and gets less fines, I'd say there's a problem right there.

Or, equal punishments, like both have to go to driving school is fine with me, or both get the same beating. In terms of money, it's a joke.

Drunk driving is a huge problem and if you fail to acknolidge it, there's no hope for you.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Pekka
Doesn't say, but it says he got fined for 20 days fine (we have a system where you get fined by a day, and it depends what your income is what the total will be). I got what...... 20 also, and it was 100 euros few summers ago. With 0 income. So he didn't brake the what we call serious limits, what would also mean suspended license for a while. So he didn't even lose his drivers license, so he wasn't going THAT fast, even though he was speeding some.

This is brilliant system, its assures everyone gets an equivilent financial "wake up call" no matter what their income is.

So if someone was unemployed and got a 20 day ticket they wouldn't have to pay anything?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I like the system from the stand point that if law enforcement is as it is here in the US funded by fines, who are the police more likely to arrest, some shlub making 20,000 euros or some well off guy making 2,000,000 euros?

hmmm.....

Do you think they might be going over the roads with a fine tooth comb for any welathy guy driving whilst ignoring other problems?

I can see it now:

Officer:Chief we need some new DVD players and better donuts for teh squad room.

Chief: Well you know what to do. Go change the speed limit signs near society hill.

[GhengisFarb™]

I don't have a problem with that.

[Hurricane]

Ogie Oglethorpe: The police don't fund their operations through fines. Sure, the fines indirectly funds the police since it is money for the state, but there is no direct connection between police funding and value of fines invoiced. At best, increased fines will increase the police budget the next year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Graduated driving bans are attractive in principle - until you find out how often a ban is ignored and how difficult they are to enforce.

Indeed... I mean, what are we talking here, does the court have do an audit on every speeder to see how much they can really pay?

And, of course, we will get the enforcement problems of police being told to go after speeders driving BMV's and Mercedes' because that will result in more money in the coffers of the city.

Utterly silly.