Reply to: Speeding fines

[oraclesmith]

Oh. Really?

Yep. The rich footballer is going to (a) have to spend time away from training (b) get bad publicity (c) suffer a reality check (d) get laughed at by mates. The unemployed layabout is going to (a) have to turn out for some hard work for a change (b) not going to be paid a penny for their efforts (c) miss out on daytime TV (d) also maybe lose a couple of days benefit because they aren't available for work.

[Euro-commuter]

Almost forgot, in the middle ages a fine was also the rent a chap would pay for his land. The fine varied depending on how much work you did on your feudal lords land and as often as not the feudal lords work involved digging in the graft. Digging in the graft could be real hard work, but was essential for the communities safety in times of trouble. Yet, if you had the money you'd rather pay the fine than do your community service...

Some Swiss communities still do something like that: they have a volunteer fire brigade, but if the male head of household doesn't volunteer, then he has a tax to pay instead.

[bogeyman]

Missus got done the other day by a plod with a mobile rig at the side of the road.

He didn't pull her over, just stuck out three fingers as she passed by.

She was probably doing 37ish in a 30 zone and didn't know whether she'd been done or not as plod made no indication to pull over, but sure enough - she was informed by letter of her 3-point prize!

Surely if an officer of the law is present, they should pull the driver over and explain the infringement and check other things - or does all that get in the way of their revenue-earning activities?

[oraclesmith]

No, no, you've got it all backwards. Back in the day fines were something quite different. Actually, back in the middle ages, I think the concept you refer to were a way for the Crown to raise money.

You wanted to eat meat? Well, as long as you paid the "appraised value" (taxation) of the game you took from the kings forest you could. Luckily for poor people there was an upper limit on this appraisal which was called the "fine".

Incidentally the concept of a poacher way more modern. In fact I don't think the word even existed pre-reformation.

I was thinking about the 19th century, when fines were used as an alternative to other forms of punishment. It would be easy for the judge to ascertain a persons class from their occupation and levy a financial penalty accordingly. It's far less easy now.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/histo...ent.html#fines

[threaded]

Almost forgot, in the middle ages a fine was also the rent a chap would pay for his land. The fine varied depending on how much work you did on your feudal lords land and as often as not the feudal lords work involved digging in the graft. Digging in the graft could be real hard work, but was essential for the communities safety in times of trouble. Yet, if you had the money you'd rather pay the fine than do your community service...

[Churchill]

Wouldn't be allowed to. This makes it reasonably proportional justice. The rich footballer is going to hate the idea just as much as the unemployed layabout.

Oh. Really?

[Euro-commuter]

Because that is the tariff laid down by law. If the footballer can afford it then good for him. Or maybe you think he should be charged more when he buys petrol/eggs/TV licence etc.

It's not a tariff, it's a punishment. And committing a crime is wrong, not just expensive.

[oraclesmith]

Or they could pay someone else to do the work for them...

Wouldn't be allowed to. This makes it reasonably proportional justice. The rich footballer is going to hate the idea just as much as the unemployed layabout.

[threaded]

No, no, you've got it all backwards. Back in the day fines were something quite different. Actually, back in the middle ages, I think the concept you refer to were a way for the Crown to raise money.

You wanted to eat meat? Well, as long as you paid the "appraised value" (taxation) of the game you took from the kings forest you could. Luckily for poor people there was an upper limit on this appraisal which was called the "fine".

Incidentally the concept of a poacher way more modern. In fact I don't think the word even existed pre-reformation.

[Churchill]

In my opinion it would be better to replace all fines with unpaid work for the community, that way people would be able to discharge their debt to society in a practical and cathartic manner.

Or they could pay someone else to do the work for them...

[oraclesmith]

Fines are a bad way of administering justice. Back in the days where everyone had a relatively fixed position in society they made sense, but nowadays they don't.

In my opinion it would be better to replace all fines with unpaid work for the community, that way people would be able to discharge their debt to society in a practical and cathartic manner.

[gingerjedi]

Because that is the tariff laid down by law. If the footballer can afford it then good for him. Or maybe you think he should be charged more when he buys petrol/eggs/TV licence etc.

Rubbish, its meant to be a penalty, a puishment something that would make him think about what he has done, not just the equivelent of the change he could find down the back of his Italian sofa.

[DimPrawn]

Yes everything should be priced according to what you can afford.

This should be the next piece of New Lie legislation.

In this way, the underclasses can all live in big expensive houses and drive luxury cars.

Comrade, why should the poor not be able to afford what the rich have?

[PRC1964]

Because that is the tariff laid down by law. If the footballer can afford it then good for him. Or maybe you think he should be charged more when he buys petrol/eggs/TV licence etc.

[gingerjedi]

In some cases it is only fair, why should a footballer on 80k a week pay a £400 fine and get a 12 month ban when he raps his Bentley round a lampost cos' he was pissed when all he has to do is buy another one and hire a driver?