60 replies to this topic

[Mr. Hobo]

I don't think I'd like partying with Stalin. It'd be all fun and games till you looked at him wrong. Then you'd get the cement boots.

Who says Stalin would be in our party. We came be a much gentler party . No need to kill tens of millions of people to speed up the industrialization of our country.

I'd go with B. And I think in Japan you the amount you get fined is based on your income so I like their system.

Also, I don't think we'd have a chance if we were communist. Too many people want to stick with a capitalist democracy. Our best bet would be a party with extremely major socialist goals. I can't really foresee a revolution in America until it gets to the point that alot of people can't afford the basic necessities

[Amagius]

If you're saying the rich may not be deterred by a $100 fine, that's just speculation, you don't know for sure.

I have a problem with deterrence laws simply because they are speculative, but that's pretty silly. I could give you innumerable anecdotes (Ant A has five leaves and Ant B has twenty leaves! Both lose a leaf! Who has lost the most of his total balance?) and it will always be speculative in a sense, but who will feel the cost of a penalty most will always be the one with the least of that cost to give away.

[SupermanFTM]

Okay, the numbers convinced me. Guess it's not a good night of debating for me . I still think that "same crime, same punishment" is the most reasonable way to handle things, but I can see why it should be different in that situation.

Heh, essentially it can be seen as the same punishment. It's a punishment by percent income rather than set amount

[zpoy]

Why A?
Thats not equal punishment under the law.
$100 to someone who makes $2000 dollars a month is a lot. He probably wont be speeding again.
$100 to someone who makes $50,000 dollars a month is nothing. You think thats really punishment for him? Who would be more likely to speed again?

Equal means equal. $100=$100. This is equal. You fail at math. Their salary has nothing to do with what they've done. $100 means something to me regardless of what I am making. I hate people that assume that people that make more money don't have anything else to do with it but waste it and pay extra taxes because everyone wants to make more money but everyone still hates them because they are "rich".

[Melchoire]

Common sense tells you most would not be deterred by it Of course it's a speculation, but that in no way discredits the logic behind it.

good point i guess, ima have to think about this a little more

Equal means equal. $100=$100. This is equal. You fail at math. Their salary has nothing to do with what they've done. $100 means something to me regardless of what I am making. I hate people that assume that people that make more money don't have anything else to do with it but waste it and pay extra taxes because everyone wants to make more money but everyone still hates them because they are "rich".

That's sorta what I'm trying to say. But they're saying that money is easy to make and rich people won't be deterred by the fine.

[Alex]

Equal means equal. $100=$100. This is equal. You fail at math. Their salary has nothing to do with what they've done. $100 means something to me regardless of what I am making. I hate people that assume that people that make more money don't have anything else to do with it but waste it and pay extra taxes because everyone wants to make more money but everyone still hates them because they are "rich".

That last sentence is barely even coherent. You fail at sentence structure.
Did you even read the whole topic?

[Mr. Hobo]

Equal means equal. $100=$100. This is equal. You fail at math. Their salary has nothing to do with what they've done. $100 means something to me regardless of what I am making. I hate people that assume that people that make more money don't have anything else to do with it but waste it and pay extra taxes because everyone wants to make more money but everyone still hates them because they are "rich".

Ok. Lets assume you're supporting yourself. When you buy your groceries, do you clip coupons to save 30 cents on a random thing you're buying? I doubt it. So I'm guessing that 30 cents means virtually nothing to you. If that's true I don't know how you can make the above statement. If you were making so little money that you had to clip those coupons then the 30 cents would mean something to you. Apply this logic to the tickets. Someone who makes 100$ a minute isn't going to mind getting a ticket as much as someone who makes 100$ a day. So the total of the fine should be adjusted and increased to the point where the person who's speeding will be deterred by it.

Alright, this topic is too active for my tastes . I'll be back once it dies a little

[zpoy]

That's sorta what I'm trying to say. But they're saying that money is easy to make and rich people won't be deterred by the fine.

But if money was easy to make then everyone would be in that category of "rich". But then the value of the dollar would go down! Then they would all be poor! And then we would be thrown into a space-time continuum and we all die! Use the boost to get through!

[Melchoire]

That last sentence is barely even coherent. You fail at sentence structure.
Did you even read the whole topic?

He probably did because earlier you were daunted at how I said money is hard to earn and Alias said it must have been a joke.

[Melchoire]

Too bad he said equal under the law and not equal as in 100 = 100 The point was it's not equal because of the percentage difference between how much the fine takes away of that person's income. If you were to be walking down a street and saw a gumball machine that was only 1 penny for a gumball would you take it? (Assuming you chewed gum and wanted a piece). Now what if that same machine suddenly became $10? See my point?

Well think of it this way if the $100 fine doesn't deter someone from speeding the prohibition they get from speeding too many times probably will. So even if the rich guy got 10 speeding tickets he would eventually realize he needs to slow down if he wants to keep driving.

[redlion]

This thread is stupid. The whole theory of blind justice is to take the crime into account independently of other factors. If anyone else remembers 12 Angry Men, you'll remember this scene:

Juror #10: Six to six... I'm telling you, some of you people in here must be out of your minds. A kid like that...
Juror #9: I don't think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it. The facts are supposed to determine the case.

This epitomizes the entire premise behind fairness under the law. What is 'fair' is unimportant. What is 'fair under the law' is the only thing a government need be concerned with.

[zpoy]

Too bad he said equal under the law and not equal as in 100 = 100 The point was it's not equal because of the percentage difference between how much the fine takes away of that person's income. If you were to be walking down a street and saw a gumball machine that was only 1 penny for a gumball would you take it? (Assuming you chewed gum and wanted a piece). Now what if that same machine suddenly became $10? See my point?

That gumball metaphor completely went over my head but I understand the percentage difference I just was focusing on equality. I hate government. Anarchy with guidelines FTW!

[Melchoire]

Yeah but if that guy is late to work speeding looks like a lot better of an option considering $100 is pocket change to him.

Then he'll be taking the chance of being stopped by a police officer and being even more late. And you're sorta going back on how you said money is easy to make if you think the rich guy needs to hurry to work.

Edited by FlashGM, 18 April 2008 - 08:32 PM.

[Melchoire]

I don't understand how money is easy to make goes in with this. If a person has extensive savings in which $100 would be equivalent to $1 to a poor person, then it doesn't matter what work they put into it because it's simply pocket change. I don't hold my one dollar bills closely to me and constantly remind myself of how much I worked to get it and how I should spend it only on important things because it's just pocket change.

And they are not stupid, they know the risks, yet people take it all the time, and generally get away with it. I know I speed almost every day (not like super speeding) and have never received a speeding ticket in my life. The only reason I'm scared to get a ticket is not because of the fine but because I could get my license suspended being a minor.

Obviously none of us are gonna budge from our stances on the issue. =P I still hold that everyone should be treated equally before the law despite their financial status. The fact that some people have so much money that they can piss it away and no be affected is another problem all together.

Edit: lemme ask you: If the pay-by-income method of speeding tickets was put in place would you still speed?

Edited by FlashGM, 18 April 2008 - 08:46 PM.

[Alex]

I still hold that everyone should be treated equally before the law

We all think that. The argument is whether or not it is equal treatment since for a rich guy $100 is hardly punishment/deferrant.

redlion, I doubt you ever read what the argument is about.

[Will]

B is more interesting. It does seem more fair to me but it would basically ensure that the police would stalk uber-rich people waiting for them to make little slip-ups...cause the PD needs a new Lear Jet.

[redlion]

We all think that. The argument is whether or not it is equal treatment since for a rich guy $100 is hardly punishment/deferrant.

redlion, I doubt you ever read what the argument is about.

I did, and I addressed the difference in my post. Thanks for reading the last two sentences. What is fair is hardly important when we're talking about government. Were we to talk about individual justice, yes, you'd be right. But its stupid to talk about individual cases because individual justice is too time consuming (not to mention expensive) to be applied to a democracy. Or a republic, since there are no democracies currently in existence.

[Alex]

I don't see what that has to do with choice A or B. Perhaps fair was the wrong word to use, I didn't want anyone to dwell on "fair" , but rather on the 2 choices....
I don't know why people are bringing all this talk about democracy and government.

[redlion]

In terms of what is fair, B is more fair.

People are bringing in democracy and government because that is the only real situation in which you can talk about fair.

[Sweeney]

I think, actually, at least in England, that it's how many points someone has on their licence that determines how likely they are to speed.

I don't know if you guys have the points system.

[Cyo]

Didn't read the second page but if you want punishment (as in fines and stuff) to be fair then it should be percentual (Sunschorch, correct me if i mispelled that).

let's say currently a fine for speeding would be 100 bucks, that's 5% for a man with a salary of 2000 dollars. For a rich man who has a salary of 50000 dollars that 100 dollar fine would be 0.2% so that doesn't sound much of a punishment so let's say fining would be percentual then the rich man would be fined for 5% of his salary that's something like 2500 bucks, which still ain't THAT much for the rich man but is still a considerable sum and would probably make him think about speeding next time.

Tho this would kinda be fucked up if let's say bill gates would do some speeding on the streets.

oh and kommunists are not cool.

[Melchoire]

We all think that. The argument is whether or not it is equal treatment since for a rich guy $100 is hardly punishment/deferrant.

You're riding that on speculation again. Even if logic tells you that most rich people won't be deterred it wouldn't be fair to charge all rich folk by percent because you don't know which ones can be deterred and which one can't. And if you apply it you'd be treating a whole bunch of people unfairly because they would be deterred by a $100 fine not ~$1000.

and kommunists are not cool.

wat?!?

[Amagius]

You're riding that on speculation again. Even if logic tells you that most rich people won't be deterred it wouldn't be fair to charge all rich folk by percent because you don't know which ones can be deterred and which one can't. And if you apply it you'd be treating a whole bunch of people unfairly because they would be deterred by a $100 fine not ~$1000.

Deterrence is naturally speculative, but, as you said, by using logic, one can make the assumption that the cost of a penalty will be most felt by the one with the least of that cost to give away. So, in the effort to deter even those who are rich, you would take away more. If one held to your philosophy on traffic legislation, the rich can drive as haphazardly as they want--they have more to give away.

Again: Deterrence is naturally speculative, but one must take the most logical route, if one wants to enforce deterrence.

[SupermanFTM]

Didn't read the second page but if you want punishment (as in fines and stuff) to be fair then it should be percentual (Sunschorch, correct me if i mispelled that).

let's say currently a fine for speeding would be 100 bucks, that's 5% for a man with a salary of 2000 dollars. For a rich man who has a salary of 50000 dollars that 100 dollar fine would be 0.2% so that doesn't sound much of a punishment so let's say fining would be percentual then the rich man would be fined for 5% of his salary that's something like 2500 bucks, which still ain't THAT much for the rich man but is still a considerable sum and would probably make him think about speeding next time.

Tho this would kinda be fucked up if let's say bill gates would do some speeding on the streets.

oh and kommunists are not cool.

Haha, that's basically what I was trying to say, but no one responds to me

The point is the punishment can only be equal when taking into account all variables, including income in this case.

[zpoy]

Haha, that's basically what I was trying to say, but no one responds to me

The point is the punishment can only be equal when taking into account all variables, including income in this case.

So what's equal punishment when a poor person kills someone and when a rich person kills someone?