Finnish justice system strikes again!

[Qilue]

Perhaps a system similiar to where I live expanded to include DUI offences.

Here, there's a crime called "hooning". Squeeling tyres, street racing, loud stereos etc. On the first offense, a warning is given. Second offense, their car is impounded for a certain amount of time (a week I think). Third offense, their car is confiscated.

I imagine there would be a dramatic reduction of the incidence of DUI if these drivers could lose their car rather than just their licence. Of note, there has been a dramatic reduction of the incidence of "hooning" since this law was introduced.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

Why is that silly? If you are a tax auditor for the government, will you look at large corporations first or SME's first? This is just prioritising limited resources.

[East Street Trader]

I quite like the idea of impounding/confiscating cars.

There is the problem that people aren't always driving their own car and hire purchase and so on. But still, it would be worth a try. If it was arranged so that the traffick warden/police officer dealing with the offence drove the car off there and then and there was a requirement for the offender to pay the cost of storing the car it might be quite low on administrative cost and enforcement hassles.

As for disqualification after a number of petty offences we have that in the UK and I think others do also. When each petty offence is dealt with, the magistrates specify a number of penalty points which are then endorsed onto the driver's licence. Once the number of points is high enough a short period of disqualification kicks in.

This bites hardest on professional drivers - because they are on the roads more than others and thus have expanded opportunities for minor transgressions plus losing their licence threatens their livelihood. To what extent having a bunch of points on your licence deters further offences in the case of the ordinary Joe I don't know.

[Urban Ranger]

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

Why? You are talking about capitalistic countries here.

[Pekka]

VJ, yeah tough to pull links for that one. But I can say that I don't ever remember seeing the victims relatives seeing any more than few thousand (10 000 euros max) from murder, kill, or what ever the case would be.

Also, if you let's say get your face blasted because you bought a product even from big company, you might get compensation, but you will never ever get 170 000 euros in here. NEVER. I'm not saying you should get kazillion euros from thje companies, I mean we like our products without 5 page manual on what you can't do, darwinism you can call it, but if an individual has to pay 170 000 for speeding, and company has to pay less than that for ruining someones life if it was the fault of their product and not user fault, hey.. there's got to be something wrong. Also, YOU NEVER PAY 170 000 euros for killing anyone. YOu don't pay 20 000 euros for killing someone. Never. No one pays that. So, that's why I think it is not in perspective with other real crimes.

And no, I'm not saying we should raise the bar so much, that you'd get 23000 000000 euros if some company sexually harrases you, I'm saying this guy shouldn't get 170 000 euro ticket, not even in theory. It will drop in courts, but it shouldn't be this even to begin with, and even though many of you think it's a nice and equal thing, I think it's a shame and disgraceful play of what is ultimately jealousy.

[Pekka]

So, if we are talking about equality, why doesn't the companies have to pay figures like that? They have money, their only purpose is business and making maximum amount of profit. There's more morality charging against these guys, than against individual who has it good in business.

[Harovan]

Companies don't drive cars. Individuals do. Each individual has a personal income. And each individual is fully responsible for his style of driving. No company can legally force a company driver to violate traffic rules.

I'm perfectly well with a fine system based on an income percentage.

[Pekka]

You missed my point. Companies are responsible of their products, in theory. If they make a faulty product, and customers suffers because of it, let's say even die from it, in here, you will never see 170 000 euros.

It can be even from their own mistake that and they might have broken all the safety rules and laws, but there will never be 170 000 euros.

If a taxi driver drives over me (working for company in here), and I die, there will be no 170 000 euros. There will be no 170 000 euros if I lose my hands. Even if the driver was drunk, and even if the company makes 10 million profit in a year.

[Harovan]

That's not the same. One thing is a fine, i.e. an educational measure. How much is a millionaire "educated", if he's fined €100? The other thing is a compensation of really inflicted damage. If you can prove, that the damage is that high, you can for certain get €170,000 or even more out of a company.

[Pekka]

Education exactly. How much is murderer educated for getting out in 4 years? How much is an individual getting educated for getting 170 000 euro speeding ticket? How much is a company educated for paying your 10 000 when you lost your both arms, and little extra for the pain?

I'm talking about putting things in perspective. Many of you seem to be separating rich from poor, whereas I'm trying to see things in perspective differently. Yes, we are talking about fines, why does a rich man has to pay more in fines, than even richer companies, good income people doing actual crimes, or how about just 170 000 euro is too much for speeding ticket?

You cant measure equal punishment in money. If someone with 2000 euro income pays 160 euros, and someone rich pays 170 000 euros for the same violation, hey, that 160 euros might be lots of money to that first person, like now he isn't able to go drinking for two weeks and has to forget about buying the nice shirt, whereas the 170 000 euros you can buy a house! This hurts far more the rich one for sure, and even more, he does pay more taxes in the beginning and thus is more useful to the society.

It doesn't hurt us, because it's not us who is rich. If we were rich, I bet we'd be talking different things now. Looking from rich mans perspective, I can see no justification for this. Why should we look from his perspective, he has money? So what, he has the same rights and is a human too, even though he does have lots of money. It's a traffic violation, speeding for C's sake. If he would have let's say be drunk, and drive over someone, I'd say pay the 170 000 and fast.

In other words, if someone attacks me, and I hit him in the face and get 20 day fine for it, which is the minimum I think, I'd have to pay 170 000 euros again? I don't think so! You can't put things in perspective with money. OR, the other option is to put a limit to how much you can be fined. There should be some slowing down when you go up, I mean more slowing down, just like you have slowing down when you make less income. Put a roof to it. Or at least less radical scale.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
whereas the 170 000 euros you can buy a house! This hurts far more the rich one for sure

Wrong.
People who get little money (ok, that's less than 2000 a month, make it 800€ a month) generally have very little savings, if any, to cope with unexpected expanses. 80€ of fines when you are walking the razor's edge is much more of a pain than 170,000€ of fines when you have tens of millions, if not billions, of capital. Remember, the guy has an income of 6 millions from his capital, meaning he has much, much more in stock.

The rich guy has lost enough to buy a house. But would he have bought a house with? Does he buy a house every 20 days? Does he suffer from not buying a house these 20 days?
OTOH, for the very poor, the proportional loss of money means that you can't pay rent nor food for 20 days. It is another kind of suffering altogether.

[Pekka]

No, it's none of our business what he does with the money. He can stuff it up his butt, ok by me. That's stupid as he could for example just give it to the poor if he feels that way about his money, but ultimately, it's his decision.

Well, if you make 800 euros per month, which I think is impossible here unless you're student or prisoner or illegal immigrant, sure it hurts. But then you can't drive the car either, the gasoline is so expensive anyway.

I make little over 400 euros per month, and it leaves me 60 euros after rent and internet, so, I think I can say from experience that it woudl hurt me horribly, but hey, I still think the rich guy who paid 170 000 hurts more than me. Like I said, you can't measure 'hurting' in money, so that's why it should be up like that.

OR, the people who make less than 1000 euros per month, they should have the ability to pay in community service like spreading fliers or if they feel ashamed doing that, then they can do something else that is easy and that they can do. You can't measure the suffering in money, you just can't.

You all seem to think that the lower income folks hurt like hell when they lose 80 euros from that 1600 euro income, but then again the rich won't hurt at all really, or hurt about the same? How do you know that? For all we know, that money could have been reserved to buy a hospital cor cancer patients. Unlikely, but the point is we can't know. I'd like to point out AGAIN that we are talking about SPEEDING.

[Pekka]

Well well, I'd be happy about solution that would take equal hurting. Ok, how about community service? No matter what you make, you have to do something that is equally easy, the same thing. Let's say you have to pour soup to the poor people who are waiting in line, or go to hospital and help there for a day. This would satisfy me as an equal punishment.

I just don't think you can measure it in money.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
I just don't think you can measure it in money.

Some people here will tell you a rich guy loses more money (because he wastes a better-paid time) than the poor, and that your suggestion is unfair.

I don't think it is unfair, and I actually think it is a good idea to have people make equal time of community service. But the "unfairness" behind your idea is exactly the same as having proportional fines.

[Pekka]

No I don't think so. Both have free time. They can come in then.

Or, I can punch both in the face with the same amount of power. Or, to make it equal, I can punch them until they both cry. How about this one?