Ever since our justice system has been implemented, we have had the same dollar amount fines for both the wealthy and the poor. This idea of changing fine amounts for wealthy and poor has been on the table for a while. In other parts of the world, they have already implemented fines based on income. A prime example of this is a $65,715 speeding ticket that a wealthy finnish business man.
One advantage of income based fining would be helping reduce extreme poverty and debt. The poor who are fined the same as a very rich person, get caught in a cycle of debt and jail. With a fixed fine, the wealthy can commit a crime and pay it off without it affecting them at all. The most common type of income-based fines is the "day fine". The day fine gauges how much your fine should be based on your average daily income. Another pro to the income-based fines would be an increase in government revenue. If the fines are lower, it is more likely for a low-income individual to pay their fines or debts. With fixed pricing today, some just refuse to pay their fines.
Another question that arises is the constitutionality of income-based fines. The only thing that is not letting us do income-based fines is the Excessive Fines Clause. Part of the 8th amendment says that we may not fine an amount that is not proportional to the crime.
I think that we should slowly transition into an income-based fine system. I am not saying to raise the fines for the wealthy, but lower fines for the poor. There are clearly advantages to lowering fines for poor people such as an increase in government revenue and a lower extreme poverty rate.
Do you think we should adopt an income-based fine system?
If so, how do you think it would make our country better?
Should fines go up for the wealthy too?
Sources:
https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-constitutionality-of-income-based-fines/
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/constitutionality-income-based-fines
Replies
Excellent topic choice and very well done!
It all depeneds on how bad the crime is and how much damage or things youve done is how the price should be set. I dont think you should pay alot for something little you did i just think it should be what is needed to have it taken care of.
Do you think we should adopt an income-based fine system no we dont need this these tickets are to exspensive as is.they already wanna take as much as possible it would be really bad if this happened.
That is true, however, high fines typically drive people away from crime which may be a benefit.
I think this would be a great idea however this can be used for an advantage I believe if they are repeat offenders increase the fine or fine them as normal. However when it comes to the rich there should be a limit on how much they can be fined.
I agree, repeat offenders should be charged much more. Maybe even multiplying fines.
I think we should have an income-based fine system because mini crimes like speeding tickets can suck for the poor, but barely be noticed by the rich. This can make the rich less cautious about their speed when driving because the consequence isn't that bad. This can lead to less safe roads, I think that a while fine shouldn't be detrimental to someone's financials, it should still be enough to dissuade that person from doing it again.
I think that minor offences like speeding tickets should be adjusted for income. However, I think that major offences, such as murder or assault should be fixed fines. (Based on severity)
I don't think we should adopt an income-based fine system. If the poor don't want to pay a high fee, than they shoulfdn't do the crime. That being said, I know that it's a lot tougher to stay out of crime if you are raised in poverty. Yes, this lets the wealthy get off easy, but they're going to find ways out of crime anyways.
I agree with what you are saying. High fines are definitely a deterrent for people who can not afford it to not commit crimes.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next