why is my fine so large £425 for 90 in a 70mph?

[vonhosen]

grumbledoak said:

vonhosen said:

How else would you describe £60 instead of £425 (or indeed reduced costs for all parties involved) ?

A clear sign that this is more about revenue than justice.

The justice system would have fined him for the offence (an offence which he hasn't denied committing), it offered him a chance of paying a smaller fine, which is less revenue.
If it were about revenue you'd charge a lot more than £60 for the fine.

[Finlandia]

Puddenchucker said:

10 Pence Short said:

If people are going to be fined the same amount irrespective of their means, then you have a two tier justice system that offers little if any punishment to those well off yet harshly punishes those with little spare income.

So by that definition the FPN system is inherently unfair, is it not?

Not to mention clamping and such fines.

[10 Pence Short]

Puddenchucker said:

10 Pence Short said:

If people are going to be fined the same amount irrespective of their means, then you have a two tier justice system that offers little if any punishment to those well off yet harshly punishes those with little spare income.

So by that definition the FPN system is inherently unfair, is it not?

The FPN fine is set at pretty much the lowest limit you're going get for any motoring fine at Mags. If you can afford to run a car, you can almost certainly afford the £60 (equivalent to filling most cars with a tank of fuel) fine, but that's not the point you're making...

The FPN is an inducement to avoid wasting valuable court time on a trivial matter of which you know you're guilty. Seeming the whole idea of an FPN is to avoid wasting time, means testing each one would be defeating the object. An FPN is also only used against basic offences within set criteria that don't really require heavy punishment or Court scrutiny. The 3 points is the punishment with an FPN and the fine is more of a cost recovery for processing the offence, rather than punishment.

Having said all of that, if a top-end FPN case went to court, someone with very low means would and should expect to be punished equally to someone with considerable ones.

[vonhosen]

otolith said:

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = No.

So it is nothing to do with fairness of penalty and entirely to do with the practicality of extracting punishment? I'm sceptical of that, I think TPS's explanation of the motives for varying the fine are correct, that it is an attempt to equalise the impact upon the offender, and in that case I maintain that the greater impact of a custodial sentence upon someone who has more to lose ought also to be a consideration in sentencing.

That's not the case though.

If Lakshmi Mittal were to be up on the exact same charge as me, his fine would not be proportionally different in relation to our incomes.

The fine is firstly set against the tariff & then it is only adjusted down for those who have an inability to pay such an amount. It won't get put up for him because it has little or no effect on him financially compared to me.

[otolith]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4174673.stm

BBC said:

Paul Goggins said the scheme, set out in the Management of Offenders Bill on Thursday, would make fines "fairer".

"It reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the ability of the person to pay," he told BBC News.

But Mr Goggins denied the allegation, insisting it was designed to ensure the impact of fines was "sustained" between people of differing means.

Courts already consider an offender's ability to pay when setting fines.

But BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said: "The new scheme will include a more explicit calculation of the offender's daily disposable income."

Mr Goggins promised that the system of calculating offenders' disposable income would be a "credible" one which undertook "careful calculations.

I'm sure I remember some wealthy people getting stung with massively disproportionate fines at the time - perhaps they have tweaked the system since then.

[vonhosen]

otolith said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4174673.stm

BBC said:

Paul Goggins said the scheme, set out in the Management of Offenders Bill on Thursday, would make fines "fairer".

"It reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the ability of the person to pay," he told BBC News.

But Mr Goggins denied the allegation, insisting it was designed to ensure the impact of fines was "sustained" between people of differing means.

Courts already consider an offender's ability to pay when setting fines.

But BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said: "The new scheme will include a more explicit calculation of the offender's daily disposable income."

Mr Goggins promised that the system of calculating offenders' disposable income would be a "credible" one which undertook "careful calculations.

I'm sure I remember some wealthy people getting stung with massively disproportionate fines at the time - perhaps they have tweaked the system since then.

The absolute maximum penalty for an under inflated tyre is £2500.

Given that the maximum wouldn't be given to Mr Mittal in the first place, how are they going to obtain effectual parity on any fine for both of us, let alone the whole driving population ?

I'd venture that both his & my fine wouldn't be hugely different & I'd only be able to talk mine down if I could display that I don't have the means to pay.

[brenflys777]

If I can get a discount on a fine in relation to not being able to pay - perphaps we should have to place a bond before being allowed to venture out on the roads.

Not to place car ownership out of reach of lower incomes, but to ensure that drivers cannot commit offences whilst driving knowing that a 'fair minded' magistrate is unable to fine them. If the aim of the process is to deter future offences and punish bad behaviour - the current system would seem to excuse both if you can present an inability to suffer a fair fine. So if you can't afford a fair fine and we are unwilling to make a punishment which is not monetary, the current system appears to only adequately punish and deter those with funds to cover unforeseen events.

Perphaps a bond of £500 ?

[eldar]

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4174673.stm

BBC said:

Paul Goggins said the scheme, set out in the Management of Offenders Bill on Thursday, would make fines "fairer".

"It reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the ability of the person to pay," he told BBC News.

But Mr Goggins denied the allegation, insisting it was designed to ensure the impact of fines was "sustained" between people of differing means.

Courts already consider an offender's ability to pay when setting fines.

But BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said: "The new scheme will include a more explicit calculation of the offender's daily disposable income."

His chauffer won't be on a lot of money, will he?

Mr Goggins promised that the system of calculating offenders' disposable income would be a "credible" one which undertook "careful calculations.

I'm sure I remember some wealthy people getting stung with massively disproportionate fines at the time - perhaps they have tweaked the system since then.

The absolute maximum penalty for an under inflated tyre is £2500.

Given that the maximum wouldn't be given to Mr Mittal in the first place, how are they going to obtain effectual parity on any fine for both of us, let alone the whole driving population ?

I'd venture that both his & my fine wouldn't be hugely different & I'd only be able to talk mine down if I could display that I don't have the means to pay.

[fluffnik]

The bottom line folks, is that the speed enforcement racketeers are the enemy...

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

How else would you describe £60 instead of £425 (or indeed reduced costs for all parties involved) ?

Conspiring to pervert the course of justice?

[14-7]

More the fact that people who can afford to think that they should be able to bypass the law as a fine really doesn't affect them should be fined more than those that can't afford to do so.

[clarkey318is]

eldar said:

vonhosen said:

eldar said:

vonhosen said:

I disagree, luckily our governments haven't agreed with you either.
If you impose a fine it is only fair if it is payable & within a reasonable defined time frame.

Social engineering, then. If you are feckless/smart enough to live on state handouts, the penalty is negligible in both financial and effort terms. If you work for a living it costs.

The carrot/stick balance needs adjusting.

What, you want a big stick for the poor & a golden carrot for the rich ?

Of course, where is the revenue and profit in fining people that can't pay. Don't fine people on benefits, its just moving money.

Easy, completely freeze the benefits. 2 birds, 1 stone.

[Broccers]

eccles said:

So you send said scrote to prison, which costs you, the taxpayer a shed load of money every day in food, accommodation, etc, until they've earn't enough of their tax payer supplied prison wage, to pay the fine..... Oh yes, your world is just dandy!

Your solution is what?

Makes me smile this thread, glad there are some hard working people posting who get what life is all about in the real world. Obviously my send them all to prison is unworkable instead create a mechanism where these folk are put in sweat shops where their keep is included in the work they do to pay back their crimes. It's pretty simple.

[herewego]

Broccers said:

eccles said:

So you send said scrote to prison, which costs you, the taxpayer a shed load of money every day in food, accommodation, etc, until they've earn't enough of their tax payer supplied prison wage, to pay the fine..... Oh yes, your world is just dandy!

Your solution is what?

Makes me smile this thread, glad there are some hard working people posting who get what life is all about in the real world. Obviously my send them all to prison is unworkable instead create a mechanism where these folk are put in sweat shops where their keep is included in the work they do to pay back their crimes. It's pretty simple.

Presumably every offender would go to the sweat shops and people wouldn't be able avoid the sweat shops by paying a fine?

[bluetone]

OP - when you realised you'd lost your driving licence did it not cross your mind to get a replacement? I guess this increased fine is the price you pay for this item not making it high enough up your to-do list.

Unlucky.

[Hooli]

fluffnik said:

The bottom line folks, is that the speed enforcement racketeers are the enemy...

We know this.

[Brummmie]

bluetone said:

OP - when you realised you'd lost your driving licence did it not cross your mind to get a replacement? I guess this increased fine is the price you pay for this item not making it high enough up your to-do list.

Unlucky.

The replacement would not have landed in the time permitted.
I in fact had to buy TWO as when the ex left, she took my NEW replacement with her!

Edited by Brummmie on Sunday 18th April 11:01