Fines based on income

[nerdgirl 0]

This morning, NPR’s Morning Edition featured a story on Norway’s fines for drunk driving: “Norway's Drunken Driving Fines Based On Income.”

When police stopped a 49-year-old businessman, they discovered his blood alcohol level to be well over Norway's legal limit. Citing the man's personal wealth of more than $30 million, a court ordered him to pay $109,000 as a drunken-driving penalty — almost his entire annual income. In Norway, fines are based on income and personal wealth.

Norway has extremely strong laws against drunk driving. Anything over 0.02 blood alcohol level is illegal to operate a motor vehicle. In addition to the low BAL level, fines are high and consequences have impact, i.e., can lose driver’s license. Even for the first time offenses. Norway also has lower drunk driving rates.

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Btw: some countries reportedly include death penalties for drunk driving, so it could be worse.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[derrickiv 0]

Punishment for drunk driving should be terrible, it's reckless and people die often from it.

Punishment shouldn't ever be scaled based on income though. While I'm sure many think this is fair because this way you'll *hurt* everyone proportionally with the punishment.. that *seems* fair, but it hardly is.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

/Marg

Interesting thread topic. I think this is unfair, and justice should be applied equally for anyone who drives drunk.

Expanding on that, I don't think any kind of fine is justified for this kind of offense. I see a traffic fine as a type of government-sanctioned extortion.

I'm of the opinion that anyone caught speeding should accumulate points on his/her license, and done enough times that person should have his/her license suspended (as is the case already in addition to the fines) -- no fine needed. Any attempt by the government to get money out of the offender to me doesn't make much sense considering that citizens already pay taxes to put police on the road and pay their salaries.

I heard that state troopers have a monthly quota to meet as far as speeding tickets go. It is hard for me to see this as anything other than a legal equivalent of a mafia street thug shakedown.

Anyhow, I don't think the $109,000 fine is fair. It's outrageous. Instead, that person should have his/her license revoked or do time in a cell for a while -- that's enough of a deterrent. I voted "Less fair."

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Royd 0]

If he was hating and driving, at the same time, of course.

[nerdgirl 0]

Would it matter if a system of fines based on income was shown to be more effective in reducing incidence of drunk driving?

I.e., should the outcome be the principal driver?

(I honestly don't know off the top of my head if there is or isn't positive causality of adjustable fines or not.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I heard that state troopers have a monthly quota to meet as far as speeding tickets go.

You heard wrong.

Quotas for any sort of citations or arrests are illegal and have been for some time. That is true for all 50 states.

What departments will look at are overall law enforcement activities (or stats). Many times they are looking at an officer's total law enforcement actions, which include calls for service (dispatched calls), self iniated activities (checking on suspicious persons, traffic stops, etc), hours worked, traffic stops conducted (not just citations issued) and hours worked for the given amount of time. Departments aren't looking for a specific number of citations. Sometimes departments want Y number of documented contacts with the public. That can be welfare concerns, traffic stops, or any number of many different things.

If a department states an officer has to generate X number of citations or arrests, then that department is violating federal law. That also opens the department up to a large amount of civil liability in terms of civil rights violation lawsuits.

What do you think, do you think a department will still issue a quota? Did departments used to have quotas? Sure, officers also used to carry leather saps in some areas, but times have changed significantly.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[GeorgiaDon 340]

When I lived in Holland (AKA the Netherlands) I was told that the penalties for DUI included confiscation of your vehicle. You'd get it back after a while, but in the meantime it had had a date with a press, so it generally resembled a 3' x 3' x 3' cube. The logic was supposedly that most people spend for a car in some proportion to their wealth, so someone of modest means might drive a Fiat (or worse a Citroen), and the wealthy a Porsch. Either way, the sting would be roughly the same. No slack would be cut if you were driving your parents car, or your friends. Imagine explaining to your parents that their car had been cubed because of your DUI. Just as bad, imagine if you're still making payments; now your car is gone, and you still have to pay back the loan. Since most people spend a bit more than they really need to on a car, you'd probably not be able to afford another until the loan was paid back, so you'd be looking at a few years of public transit. I don't know if things are still done that way, or if I got the story straight, but it does seem like an interesting approach to the problem. Maybe not for the first DUI, but certainly for a second (or third, and so on) conviction.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[yarpos 4]

I voted more fair. The do this in Switzerland too, it deters rich idiots who can easily afford standard fines (less than they spend on lunch) from flouting the law.

regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was

[metalslug 31]

Quote

I voted more fair. The do this in Switzerland too, it deters rich idiots who can easily afford standard fines (less than they spend on lunch) from flouting the law.

Some laws deserve to be flouted. There are some speed limits in my country, and very likely in other parts of the world, that are just absurd.

It should also be noted that not all rich people have an "income", and many others have undeclared incomes that make fine calculations inaccurate in this context.

I prefer the licence points system as mentioned by masterblaster72.

[MartinOlsson 0]

Since punishments in a court of law is based on wealth it's just logic that fines work the same way.

/Martin

[jcd11235 0]

I was talking with a friend about this very thing yesterday evening during a conversation about the fine imposed on Intel by EU.

Since fines are intended to discourage a particular behavior, rather than to set a price that, if paid, makes the behavior acceptable, I think income based fines are more fair, at least to society as a whole. I do think there should be a minimum fine, though, so that someone with zero income must still pay fines if found guilty of an infraction/crime that is punished with a fine.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

I heard that state troopers have a monthly quota to meet as far as speeding tickets go.

You heard wrong.

Quotas for any sort of citations or arrests are illegal and have been for some time. That is true for all 50 states.

What departments will look at are overall law enforcement activities (or stats). Many times they are looking at an officer's total law enforcement actions, which include calls for service (dispatched calls), self iniated activities (checking on suspicious persons, traffic stops, etc), hours worked, traffic stops conducted (not just citations issued) and hours worked for the given amount of time. Departments aren't looking for a specific number of citations. Sometimes departments want Y number of documented contacts with the public. That can be welfare concerns, traffic stops, or any number of many different things.

If a department states an officer has to generate X number of citations or arrests, then that department is violating federal law. That also opens the department up to a large amount of civil liability in terms of civil rights violation lawsuits.

What do you think, do you think a department will still issue a quota? Did departments used to have quotas? Sure, officers also used to carry leather saps in some areas, but times have changed significantly.

Thank you for your insight, and I'm glad I'm wrong on the quota thing.

Could you explain the purpose of a monetary fine on traffic violations and how they function as a deterrent to speeding etc in a way that the points system does not? As stated earlier, I think that eventually losing privilege to drive is enough of a deterrent to committing traffic violations.

@metalslug:

Quote

Some laws deserve to be flouted. There are some speed limits in my country, and very likely in other parts of the world, that are just absurd.

Agreed. Here in the USA I think there are speed limits in non-residential areas of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York that serve only one purpose: to bring in revenue for the state via speeding tickets.

@nerdgirl:

Quote

Would it matter if a system of fines based on income was shown to be more effective in reducing incidence of drunk driving?

IMHO, I don't think anything could be more effective than taking away one's privilege to drive. Maybe I'm a bit hard-headed, but I just don't see any deterrent value in a fine.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[pirana 0]

I don't think fines are much of a deterent. Personally, I see speeding tickets as a form of tax for speeding. (Not the reckless maniac type of speeding, but the everybody getting down to business while getting to work type of speeding).

I drive 75 miles round trip for my commute, and if I went the speed limit I'd be nothing but a road hazard. The limits on the interstate are from 55 to 65, and at least 80 percent of the trraffic is doing 70 to 85. So I keep it reasonable (about 15 over usually keeps me in the flow) and pay for my once per year $180 ticket without complaining.

With the time saved, I'm buying time at about $5 per hour; a very good deal to be sure. The couple times when I got 2 tickets within 12 months, then I chilled out until one of them fell of the back end of the running 12 months.

DWI to me is a different story. IMO and in general, the penalties are way too lenient, especially for repeat offenders and when there are injuries or loss of life.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Here's a crazy idea. Don't make the punishment a monetary fine. Make the punishment time in jail. That way, someone's wealth is irrelevant. The drunk-driving millionaire can sit in jail side-by-side with the drunk-driving vagabond. That's equal punishment for equal crimes.

[champu 1]

In principle it makes sense. As others have mentioned, fixed fines can result in people who can afford it paying and getting on with their lives with no change in behavior. Level the damage levied and you may be able to change that.

Is it the most effective deterrent? Well, what works in one culture may not in another. Some places the shame would be enough if the action were publicized, others might require jail time to get the message across. You have to examine what is valued across a culture and use that some how. Money is fairly universal, but it lacks creativity. In America I think the big things would be people's free time and personal dignity. I'm sure a community service program could be developed that would serve as a strong deterrent for the rich and poor alike.

The logistics surrounding the "income and personal wealth" thing worry me a bit too. Getting an accurate picture of someone's income for a year can already be a challenge for tax purposes, never mind personal wealth.

[quade 3]

Quote

Here's a crazy idea. Don't make the punishment a monetary fine. Make the punishment time in jail. That way, someone's wealth is irrelevant. The drunk-driving millionaire can sit in jail side-by-side with the drunk-driving vagabond. That's equal punishment for equal crimes.

Some people say time is money. If that's even remotely true, doesn't a "rich man" pay more for being in jail for one day than a "poor man"?

Seems to me that for some crimes, increased fines for "the rich" actually does make sense. $100 to a millionaire is nothing. To a guy on minimum wage it's a hell of a lot.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Here's a crazy idea. Don't make the punishment a monetary fine. Make the punishment time in jail. That way, someone's wealth is irrelevant. The drunk-driving millionaire can sit in jail side-by-side with the drunk-driving vagabond. That's equal punishment for equal crimes.

You said it better than I did. Nice one.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quotas for any sort of citations or arrests are illegal and have been for some time. That is true for all 50 states.

I agree it's illegal,


but it doesn't explain why we have the last week of every month, 3 cops sitting on a little used and very safe street pulling over people for window tint, speeding over 2-3 mPH above limit, and anything else just outside of a 3 companies here the city I work. (also in several other areas about the Twin Cities)

All while at busy intersections we have constant running of red lights, etc not being monitored.

Seems the city budget needs a boost at the end of every month......it's clearly focused on revenue generatiion.

Hell, what about the practice of paying 'Extra' fines on tickets to keep that violation off your record.....

any others?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Is it the most effective deterrent?

That's an excellent question for which I don't know the answer.

Confident it's out there; it's not something I'm looking for at the moment.

It does appear that in the US harsher sentencing does not deter criminal activity overall or w/r/t illegal drug use. We've been doing that experiment for the last 25+ years. It might be different w/r/t drunk driving.

Otoh, one can look to Mayor Giuliani's “broken windows” strategy – aggressive policing of lower-level crimes and fixing broken windows, dilapidated infrastructure, etc. along with aggressive arrest of felony crime offenders and enforcement of laws, i.e., “get tough on crime” approach.

There were also increases in the minimum wage (10%) that correlated to reduction in robberies (3.4-3.7%) and murders (6.3-6.9%). Minimum wage increase.

*All* three aspects (plus other policies, in all liklihood) were important in that situation.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I don't think fines are much of a deterent.

For me, it depends on the size of the fine. And my upper boundary for is personally acceptable has changed, e.g., when in grad school, it was much lower than today.

Quote

Personally, I see speeding tickets as a form of tax for speeding.



With the time saved, I'm buying time at about $5 per hour; a very good deal to be sure. The couple times when I got 2 tickets within 12 months, then I chilled out until one of them fell of the back end of the running 12 months.

Largely concur there. If a speeding ticket was an order of magnitude or two larger would that be a significant deterrent? For me, I have a mental alogorithm that when the fine approaches some deleterious amount in my calculation, my behavior changes. Altho' currently I live less than 3 miles from my office, and in a couple months will be moving (hopefully) to a new place from which I should be able to return to commuting by bicycle.

Quote

DWI to me is a different story. IMO and in general, the penalties are way too lenient, especially for repeat offenders and when there are injuries or loss of life.

Concur.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but it doesn't explain why we have the last week of every month, 3 cops sitting on a little used and very safe street pulling over people for window tint, speeding over 2-3 mPH above limit, and anything else just outside of a 3 companies here the city I work. (also in several other areas about the Twin Cities)

Who knows. Possibly there have been citizen complaints. There are people out there that call and complain about traffic violations day in and day out, they want officers there conducting enforcement. Window tint is an officer safety issue and I have no personal problems with that being enforced. The darkest tint I've seen thus far is 2% of light being let through!

Why don't you call the department and ask? Not in a "I guess you guys need your quotas" type of thing, but more along the lines of "I was wondering why there has been an increase in enforcement in X area?" Talk to the supervisor over motors, he/she would probably know the answer.

Also, just because there are officers there conducting traffic stops, it may not be for the sake of conducting traffic stops. Traffic stops are great ways to get your hands on people running dope, gang bangers, burglars, etc. Its a situation in which the person is legally detained, as opposed to a consensual contact with the person. There is a reasonable amount of case law about this. Its actually really interesting reading and I bet you learn a little about what your personal rights truly are.

Quote

Seems the city budget needs a boost at the end of every month......it's clearly focused on revenue generatiion.

Are you sure or are you making your own conclusion from a small snippet of time in which you have no personal knowledge of the actual happenings?

Quote

Hell, what about the practice of paying 'Extra' fines on tickets to keep that violation off your record.....

Never heard of it. In Texas you can take a defensive driving class to keep the points off. I think its a great tool, honestly, an eight hour class to remind people how to be good drivers.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[happythoughts 0]

So, when I am unemployed, can I drive as fast as I want and not pay a fine?

In Florida, your vehicle license fee is based on
the weight of the vehicle. It is a usage tax because
a heavy truck wears the road more than a small car.

Someone told me that in Calif the license tag fee
is a percentage of the value of the vehicle.
So, a new Ferarri pays more than a used dump truck.

These laws are just an example of "tax that guy instead of me". The largest segment of society (the non-rich) will happily vote to tax people making more money.

"Rich" is defined as anyone making twice what
an individual is making.

[carmenc 0]

How about waterboarding? Righties tell us it's not torture, and the rich would dislike it every bit as much as the poor.

[quade 3]

Quote

Someone told me that in Calif the license tag fee
is a percentage of the value of the vehicle.
So, a new Ferarri pays more than a used dump truck.

This is both true and (in my estimation) fair. Think of it as a "flat tax."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jumpah 0]

Sure is...for someone with $30 million in wealth, a few thousand in fines means very little. A $100k fine means something. Time in prison is fantastic especially for drunk driving.