Finnish justice system strikes again!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


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.



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?

actually u can. punishment is not a qualifier for severity. so stop abusing the english language.

in america there is a reason that "justice is blind." this is important and referes to my earlier point. punishments should fit the crime. all men equal under the law(enormous french morality thing here!). u didnt do nething wrong in acquiring ur money, u shouldn't be punished for having it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
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.

Because the purpose of taxes is to provide money for the government. The purpose of fines is to punish people, NOT fund the government. The police should prioritise on those who speed more (though I doubt there is any demographic, besides young people, that would speed more often than another), not those who will provide more money in fines.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon


in america there is a reason that "justice is blind." this is important and referes to my earlier point. punishments should fit the crime. all men equal under the law(enormous french morality thing here!).

Again, .1% of income is the same as .1% of income. Where is the inequality if the same percentage is applied to all?

[Kuciwalker]

No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker
No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income.

[Kuciwalker]

'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income.

Yes, but $500 is not the same penalty as $200. And yet 1% is not the same as .1%. You know what? If you imposed a penalty INVERSELY proportional to the income, it would still be the "same penalty" by your logic.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by skywalker

'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income.

Yes, but $500 is not the same penalty as $200. And yet 1% is not the same as .1%. You know what? If you imposed a penalty INVERSELY proportional to the income, it would still be the "same penalty" by your logic.

Yes, inverse income percentages (e.g. Income x 1/.1%) would create a penalty. It all just depends on how you define the penalty. If the penalty is defined in terms of percentage of income then equality is achieved by appling the same percentage to all. If the penalty is absolute dollars, then the same penalty in absolute dollars applied to all is equal.

My point is, it is no argument against percentage based penalties to argue that they are unequal punishments because they are equal if applied equally to all. There is no moral argument to be made here.

My argument is a policy argument - that is, percentages are a good policy for discouraging reckless driving. If you have a good policy argument infavor of absolute dollar penalties (can't think of one off the top of my head), fine. If you can think of a good policy argument for inverse percentage penalties (I seriously doubt it), fine. But stop the moral arguments about equality under the law.

[Pekka]

Hey, you can all argue about how this is fair and everyone who thinks it's unfair is a nutty, but bottom line, we're not the ones who says 170 000 euro ticket for speeding is called for

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Pekka
Hey, you can all argue about how this is fair and everyone who thinks it's unfair is a nutty, but bottom line, we're not the ones who says 170 000 euro ticket for speeding is called for

I wish I had enough income to qualify for a 170K Euro fine.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

You are arguing the absolute value of these two numbers are not the same. Yes. So? They are not meant to be the same. Where's the problem?

[Pekka]

The Templar, me too!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


Again, .1% of income is the same as .1% of income. Where is the inequality if the same percentage is applied to all?

obviously u didnt read the entire post

under the concept that "justice is blind" it would not be able to take ur income level into account. thats the whole point. u can't take non-related things into account when convicting someone.

roll it over in ur head for a lil bit, u'll get it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
under the concept that "justice is blind" it would not be able to take ur income level into account

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that's not what "justice is blind" is supposed to mean. It means justice will be applied to every single person who breaks the law (if that person gets caught), regardless of this person's background etc.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that's not what "justice is blind" is supposed to mean. It means justice will be applied to every single person who breaks the law (if that person gets caught), regardless of this person's background etc.

it means justice will be applied to everyone in the same manner regardless of their background.

not just "applied."

[East Street Trader]

The portrayal of Justice as blindfolded and balancing scales held in one hand against a sword held in the other is derived from Roman representations of their God Justicia.

I don't know what the significance of the blindness is.

Maybe it is to indicate that she will take no part herself in the loading of the scales but simply ensure they are held level and that she will enforce the outcome without any possibility (by reason of knowing who they are) of favouring those against whom the scales tip?

But that is speculation.

The corresponding Greek God is Dike, who is described as having piercing vision - able to see into and to weigh men's hearts.