Finnish justice system strikes again!

[yavoon]

the punishment should fit the crime, not the person.

I like how what effectively amounts as a prior record up there is earning money. good times, u guys must hate rich ppl.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Not if you change your frame of reference, and think purely in terms of % of income instead of hard numbers.

Well, why don't I change my frame of reference to an inverse proportion of income, as I suggested before? How is that any less valid than a %, for a crime?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker


Why should you be measuring in percent of income anyways? "Equally" would mean they pay exactly the same amount - last time I checked, 170,000 != 160

Equal percentage. .1%=.1% for instance. This might just be me, but .1% looks the same as .1%. Or are you arguing .1%!=.1%?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker


Well, why don't I change my frame of reference to an inverse proportion of income, as I suggested before? How is that any less valid than a %, for a crime?

Why should we accept your initial frame of reference?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar


Equal percentage. .1%=.1% for instance. This might just be me, but .1% looks the same as .1%. Or are you arguing .1%!=.1%?

I'm arguing 1,000,000*(.001) != 1,000*(.001).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Templar
Why should we accept your initial frame of reference?

No reason, really, except that it simply ignores the whole income issue altogether (and thus is simpler).

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
the punishment should fit the crime, not the person.

Ah, but the operative word is punishment. You can't punish Bill Gates by fining him $200. He'll give you the $200 and throw in an additional $500 if he can give you a kick in the ass.

I like how what effectively amounts as a prior record up there is earning money. good times, u guys must hate rich ppl.

Nothing against rich people as a group at all (I know good and bad rich people actually). Why do you hate poor people so much that you want to fine them a disproportionate amount of their income when they break traffic rules?

[Kuciwalker]

Why not just avoid monetary punishment altogether?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker


No reason, really, except that it simply ignores the whole income issue altogether (and thus is simpler).

Depends. Is the issue administrative convenience or discouraging speeding. If the goal is to discourage reckless driving, then one should be charged sufficiently to discourage one, right?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker
Why not just avoid monetary punishment altogether?

Granted, a week being Bubba's playmate (er, cellmate) would discourage speeding as well.

[Kuciwalker]

I meant just cancelling a license after a certain number of violations

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker
I meant just cancelling a license after a certain number of violations

Then Bubba will be so disappointed ...

[RGBVideo]

can you give links to this (like from your last statement about murder)

Yeah, I also hate when people throw things like that without good links or facts. You can't find almost any links in English, that's for sure. I'll try to search some Finnish material later this day, when I've got more time.

Granted, a week being Bubba's playmate (er, cellmate) would discourage speeding as well.

There are no Bubba's in this country. We don't believe that assrape + HIV for simply breaking the law would equal some divine justice and solve all the problems related to crime.

[Saras]

Originally posted by skywalker
I meant just cancelling a license after a certain number of violations

As I said, DON'T get me started

[Frozzy]

A better idea would be to fine them for a percentage of their income representative to percentage income for, say, a month.

e.g. If you are 150 in a 100km zone, you get fined 50% of your income for a month. If you do 55 in a 50km speed zone, you get fined 2.5% of your monthly salary.