Punishment Disparities
Discussion
I was watching traffic Cops a couple of nights ago. I don't know if you saw it but that nasty piece of work in Manchester was packing a 10inch curved knife with lots of bits designed to pull your guts out as he withdrew it, he did a runner from the police, had to be restrained and I'm sure he was threatening to kill the police officers during his aggressive rantings - he was fined £200.
I was fined £450+5pts by North wales Police a few years ago whilst taking the kids to see their granny.
"Reg"
I was fined £450+5pts by North wales Police a few years ago whilst taking the kids to see their granny.
"Reg"
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
I'm sorry VH, I never personally attack anyone on here, but I have to say that is the most utterly ludicrous comment you have posted to date.
For God's sake waken up man and get yourself into the real world!
How can you possibly justify this kind of behaviour from the criminal justice system.
Any and all wicked, wanton bastards threatening others with knives MUST be dealt with in the strongest possible manner, NOT hitting them with a fine then letting them back on the streets!
This is a classic example of how the system completely fails to protect the public and those who need protection, when they need protection; and instead attacks the same people, those going about their every day lives with no criminal intent; the motorists; you or I!
jith said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
I'm sorry VH, I never personally attack anyone on here, but I have to say that is the most utterly ludicrous comment you have posted to date.
For God's sake waken up man and get yourself into the real world!
How can you possibly justify this kind of behaviour from the criminal justice system.
Any and all wicked, wanton bastards threatening others with knives MUST be dealt with in the strongest possible manner, NOT hitting them with a fine then letting them back on the streets!
This is a classic example of how the system completely fails to protect the public and those who need protection, when they need protection; and instead attacks the same people, those going about their every day lives with no criminal intent; the motorists; you or I!
I don't disagree with you that people with knives need to be dealt with severely & are a scourge on society.
Yes you can get a custodial sentence &/or fine for bladed/pointed articles, but just how many people who carry a knife, go to court with a brief paid for by legal aid, give some sob story, have no previous convictions for carrying a knife or indeed any other violence offence & are going to go to prison for that first conviction ?
That then leaves the bench with the fine option & the amount of any fine given will be within the statutory limits for starters. After that it must also be based on the convicted person ability to pay. If you have little disposable income, the court have to set the fine at a level you can afford to pay, they are simply not allowed to set fines at levels where it is obvious the convicted person would default because of their financial situation at the time it was set.
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
So ... you are in favour of fine according to income.
Let's see...if I parked car und was a minute or so late returning to the car for some reason like a city congested with other folk on foot - I'd get a £30 fine currently if I pay it quickly.
Are you suggesting that because I worked hard for a fine set of qualifications which placed me in a nice career at which I also work pretty damned hard und for which I receive a fairly decent income und my husband too - that I should pay four times this because I "can afford it"?
Und some one who drives a defective car und parks in same spot und does not buy ticket at all pays either nothing or a small fine?
As for disposable income.. of this I pay direct taxation, council taxation, und indirect taxation on most of the stuff/services we buy. Und kittens are expensive as well. Current tabloid debate on the cost of average school uniform und daft school policy on where to buy this stuff should give you an idea..Grrrr!
They have this fine according to income in Switzerland. Ist very unpopular so much so that there ist lobby to oppose in next round of Kantonal elections as it has led to some ludicrous fine differential for dropping litter etc. Some person was fined the basic of £40 for crossing the road on a red man und someone earning much more was fined £300 for the same offence - per a letter which appear in Luzern local some time last year...
Und I think they have something similar in Finland - story appeared on this site at the time.. I think he was fined thousands of pounds for .. speeding... kenp said:
Let's keep it in context. He was charged with and convicted of carrying the knife in a public place. No threatening to kill a policeman, no threatening members of the public. Courts are confined (rightly so)to dealing with the issue before them.
In the episode in question - he was heard to make threats und he was certainly brandishing this weapon. Perhaps this was the charge they could make stick despite the fact the true facts of the threatening behaviour ended up on the telly. I suppose it was degree to which this was objective threat to those officers.
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
So ... you are in favour of fine according to income.
Let's see...if I parked car und was a minute or so late returning to the car for some reason like a city congested with other folk on foot - I'd get a £30 fine currently if I pay it quickly.
Are you suggesting that because I worked hard for a fine set of qualifications which placed me in a nice career at which I also work pretty damned hard und for which I receive a fairly decent income und my husband too - that I should pay four times this because I "can afford it"?
Und some one who drives a defective car und parks in same spot und does not buy ticket at all pays either nothing or a small fine?
As for disposable income.. of this I pay direct taxation, council taxation, und indirect taxation on most of the stuff/services we buy. Und kittens are expensive as well. Current tabloid debate on the cost of average school uniform und daft school policy on where to buy this stuff should give you an idea..Grrrr!
They have this fine according to income in Switzerland. Ist very unpopular so much so that there ist lobby to oppose in next round of Kantonal elections as it has led to some ludicrous fine differential for dropping litter etc. Some person was fined the basic of £40 for crossing the road on a red man und someone earning much more was fined £300 for the same offence - per a letter which appear in Luzern local some time last year...
Und I think they have something similar in Finland - story appeared on this site at the time.. I think he was fined thousands of pounds for .. speeding... As I said, the level of fine is determined (level 1-5) by the offence, but the fine itself (within those scales) will be set by the bench with due regard to a number of considerations.
What the bench have to do in setting the fine is make sure that the convicted person has the ability to pay the fine as set. The court can't set a fine from the outset that it is impossible for them to pay, because that means they would default & be sent to prison.
You can't have someone wealthy & someone poor commit the same offence & where a fine is decided as punishment given the same fine. The effects of that punishment are not the same (one will pay it from cash in the pocket, while one would be forced to go to prison simply because they are poor)
If the fine is based on the disposable income, then the effects of the fine are more similar, just as they should be for an offence in similar circumstances.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th July 10:23
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
Do you think he is likely to pay the £200? Somehow I doubt it.
So basically, people who have nothing to lose (financially speaking) can pretty much get away with anything that doesn't attract a custodial sentence?
r32 said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
Do you think he is likely to pay the £200? Somehow I doubt it.
So basically, people who have nothing to lose (financially speaking) can pretty much get away with anything that doesn't attract a custodial sentence?
If he deafaults on a fine set at a level he could pay, but decides not to, then the court can send him to prison for not paying.
What the court can't do is decide on a fine as a sentence & then impose impossible terms on that payment, so that he is effectively forced into non payment through no fault of his own & as a result imprisoned.
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
So ... you are in favour of fine according to income.
Let's see...if I parked car und was a minute or so late returning to the car for some reason like a city congested with other folk on foot - I'd get a £30 fine currently if I pay it quickly.
Are you suggesting that because I worked hard for a fine set of qualifications which placed me in a nice career at which I also work pretty damned hard und for which I receive a fairly decent income und my husband too - that I should pay four times this because I "can afford it"?
Und some one who drives a defective car und parks in same spot und does not buy ticket at all pays either nothing or a small fine?
As for disposable income.. of this I pay direct taxation, council taxation, und indirect taxation on most of the stuff/services we buy. Und kittens are expensive as well. Current tabloid debate on the cost of average school uniform und daft school policy on where to buy this stuff should give you an idea..Grrrr!
They have this fine according to income in Switzerland. Ist very unpopular so much so that there ist lobby to oppose in next round of Kantonal elections as it has led to some ludicrous fine differential for dropping litter etc. Some person was fined the basic of £40 for crossing the road on a red man und someone earning much more was fined £300 for the same offence - per a letter which appear in Luzern local some time last year...
Und I think they have something similar in Finland - story appeared on this site at the time.. I think he was fined thousands of pounds for .. speeding... As I said, the level of fine is determined (level 1-5) by the offence, but the fine itself (within those scales) will be set by the bench with due regard to a number of considerations.
What the bench have to do in setting the fine is make sure that the convicted person has the ability to pay the fine as set. The court can't set a fine from the outset that it is impossible for them to pay, because that means they would default & be sent to prison.
I know of someone who was daft enough to drive car after a drink. She had drunk white wine mixed with carbonated water. Danger of this ist that she would not know how much wine in glass und on empty stomach - the fizz take alcohol straight to blood stream.
She was rep for some firm - so she lost job und she got 12 month ban - reduced to 9 month if she did a "danger of drink" course und got a £1000 fine which she paid by standing order at so much per month.
So... if person cannot pay all at once - then it seem this system apply.
Fine for crime should be standard und not based on how much person earns.
vonhosen said:
You can't have someone wealthy & someone poor commit the same offence & where a fine is decided as punishment given the same fine. The effects of that punishment are not the same (one will pay it from cash in the pocket, while one would be forced to go to prison simply because they are poor)
I may earn plenty if you look at my payslip - but then it get swallowed up by kittens... who will be earners und taxpayers paying into the funds to pay today's future pensioners their pensions.
Just because someone look like they earn a lot does not mean they have lot of disposable income to hand. They have commitments like mortgage (ours ist repaid in full- thank goodness) - but we shell out on school fees und all the necessities which kids demand. So ist not then a case of looking at a payslip.. und also the higher earner ist paying out a lot in taxation too.
vonhosen said:
If they fine is based on the disposable income, then the effects of the fine are more similar, just as the should be for an offence in the same circumstances.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th July 10:11
But then we have disparity with this speed cam business whereby same punishment for all regardless of amount above speed limit (excluding the downright OTT of course
)WildCat said:
I know of someone who was daft enough to drive car after a drink. She had drunk white wine mixed with carbonated water. Danger of this ist that she would not know how much wine in glass und on empty stomach - the fizz take alcohol straight to blood stream.
She was rep for some firm - so she lost job und she got 12 month ban - reduced to 9 month if she did a "danger of drink" course und got a £1000 fine which she paid by standing order at so much per month.
So... if person cannot pay all at once - then it seem this system apply.
Fine for crime should be standard und not based on how much person earns.
Any fine set has to be repaid within 12 months.
If a fine is chosen as punishment, to be fair to all equally it has to be based on some ability to pay.
Wildcat said:
I may earn plenty if you look at my payslip - but then it get swallowed up by kittens... who will be earners und taxpayers paying into the funds to pay today's future pensioners their pensions.
Just because someone look like they earn a lot does not mean they have lot of disposable income to hand. They have commitments like mortgage (ours ist repaid in full- thank goodness) - but we shell out on school fees und all the necessities which kids demand. So ist not then a case of looking at a payslip.. und also the higher earner ist paying out a lot in taxation too.
That's why it's based on disposable income, means tested.
You don't pay more because you earn more, their fine is reduced because they can't afford to pay your fine.
Wildcat said:
But then we have disparity with this speed cam business whereby same punishment for all regardless of amount above speed limit (excluding the downright OTT of course
)Under the new road safety bill there will be graduated FPN points & fines (2,3 & 6 point offence levels with larger margins still going to court).
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th July 10:46
vonhosen said:
r32 said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
Do you think he is likely to pay the £200? Somehow I doubt it.
So basically, people who have nothing to lose (financially speaking) can pretty much get away with anything that doesn't attract a custodial sentence?
If he deafaults on a fine set at a level he could pay, but decides not to, then the court can send him to prison for not paying.
What the court can't do is decide on a fine as a sentence & then impose impossible terms on that payment, so that he is effectively forced into non payment through no fault of his own & as a result imprisoned.
VH, you and others who adopt this compartmentalised approach to dealing with offenders like this are totally deluded.
Part of my life was spent as a professional musician in many clubs in this country and I have witnessed some truly appalling attacks using knives, bottles or anything with a sharp point that will cut, maim and kill other human beings.
To actually even consider fining someone like this who has clear intent by virtue of the fact that they are carrying the weapon is to me ludicrous.
They MUST be given a sentence that is both punitive in the extreme, and if possible reformative: nothing short of this is acceptable and serves no purpose other than to sustain the current ridiculous "balance sheet" system of enforcement.
Conversely we must also stop prosecuting ordinary citizens just going about their business with no criminal intent whatever.
WildCat said:
Und I think they have something similar in Finland - story appeared on this site at the time.. I think he was fined thousands of pounds for .. speeding...
Anssi Vanjoki, is in the record books as the man with the largest speeding fine in the world. He was nabbed by Finnish police going 25 km/h over the speed limit on his beloved Harley Davidson and was hit with a €116,000 fine in early November last year.
Under Finnish law fines are proportionate to your income and he was fined 14 days salary. But since he'd just cashed in share options worth €14 million the fine was a little hard to swallow.
He's in good company. Nokia's former president Pekka Ala-Pietila got git with a €33,000 fine for speeding a few years before.
jith said:
vonhosen said:
r32 said:
vonhosen said:
I know what you are saying, but was £200 a lot more money (in relation to his disposable income) for him, than £450 was for you ?
Do you think he is likely to pay the £200? Somehow I doubt it.
So basically, people who have nothing to lose (financially speaking) can pretty much get away with anything that doesn't attract a custodial sentence?
If he deafaults on a fine set at a level he could pay, but decides not to, then the court can send him to prison for not paying.
What the court can't do is decide on a fine as a sentence & then impose impossible terms on that payment, so that he is effectively forced into non payment through no fault of his own & as a result imprisoned.
VH, you and others who adopt this compartmentalised approach to dealing with offenders like this are totally deluded.
Part of my life was spent as a professional musician in many clubs in this country and I have witnessed some truly appalling attacks using knives, bottles or anything with a sharp point that will cut, maim and kill other human beings.
& I am quite sure I have seen far more & far worse, even had attempts on my own life with them. So forgive me if I don't take your lecturing me on the subject too seriously.
Jith said:
To actually even consider fining someone like this who has clear intent by virtue of the fact that they are carrying the weapon is to me ludicrous.
They MUST be given a sentence that is both punitive in the extreme, and if possible reformative: nothing short of this is acceptable and serves no purpose other than to sustain the current ridiculous "balance sheet" system of enforcement.
Conversely we must also stop prosecuting ordinary citizens just going about their business with no criminal intent whatever.
The court have a difficult job.
Do they take a very young boy (who has not commited any violence offences or been convicted of knife carrying before) & put them in prison for a first offence ?
Will that reform or is another path more likely to do that ?
Or will it make things worse putting him in prison with the people/influences he will meet there ?
Each case has to be dealt with on it's own merits & the court will make judgemnts on the motives/intent etc of the person concerned when considering sentence. I am not suggesting for a minute that habitual knife carriers shouldn't be given a custodial sentence, but if you had a son, a boy you consider good, who had been bullied (but didn't want to say about it) & misguidedly took a knife with no real intent to use it, if you discovered this would you shop him to the Police & have him sent to prison, or would you think that other methods may be more appropriate for him ?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th July 11:27
V8 Archie said:
WildCat said:
Und I think they have something similar in Finland - story appeared on this site at the time.. I think he was fined thousands of pounds for .. speeding...
Anssi Vanjoki, is in the record books as the man with the largest speeding fine in the world. He was nabbed by Finnish police going 25 km/h over the speed limit on his beloved Harley Davidson and was hit with a €116,000 fine in early November last year.
Under Finnish law fines are proportionate to your income and he was fined 14 days salary. But since he'd just cashed in share options worth €14 million the fine was a little hard to swallow.
He's in good company. Nokia's former president Pekka Ala-Pietila got git with a €33,000 fine for speeding a few years before.
That obviously can't happen here. Our fines aren't simply based on income.
They are set for the offence & then adjusted on ability to pay.
vonhosen said:
The court have a difficult job.
Do they take a very young boy (who has not commited any violence offences or been convicted of knife carrying before) & put them in prison for a first offence ?
In my opinion, yes. That was a horrible looking knife and it ought to be reasonable to assume that someone carrying a knife like that intends to use it. Even if he didn't *intend* to use it, he was clearly not in control of his emotions so he could easily have used it unthinkingly.
If people knew they were going to jail for a first offence of carrying a knife, then perhaps they wouldn't carry them. In a motoring context, there are very few second chances - exceed the alcohol limit and you get banned, with all the consequences that might ensue.
regmolehusband said:
I was watching traffic Cops a couple of nights ago. I don't know if you saw it but that nasty piece of work in Manchester was packing a 10inch curved knife with lots of bits designed to pull your guts out as he withdrew it, he did a runner from the police, had to be restrained and I'm sure he was threatening to kill the police officers during his aggressive rantings - he was fined £200.
I was fined £450+5pts by North wales Police a few years ago whilst taking the kids to see their granny.
"Reg"
I was fined £450+5pts by North wales Police a few years ago whilst taking the kids to see their granny.
"Reg"
I completely agree. My speeding offence was given over what the magistrates guidelines allow by giving me 6 points and a £200 fine.
It is good to know that if i was actually to commit a real crime against society that I would be dealt with less harshly.
Vonhosen is obviously explaining the background very well however all this way of sentencing shows is that the system punishes and criminalises law abiding citizens who already supply the huge majority of the funding of the whole legal system while the real criminals who affect those law abiding citizens lives are seen to be dealt with less harshly.
It is an unfortunate byproduct of the 'speed kills' prerogative. In another ten years time when even less of 'middle england' support the good work of the police and courts we will ask where it has all gone wrong...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff