I'm not sure how to word this. So heres my best.

Two people commit the same crime, one is wealthy, the other is not as financially well to do. How should the two people be fined? Should the richer person be fined more since they have more money?

I think that they should both be fined the same amount. America prides itself at being equal towards everyone, but how can we say that when we are being biased and saying that someone should have to pay more for the same crime just because they have more money?

Anyway, I want to know your opinion, because I just got done with a quite lengthy debate with mi madre over this.

You totally missed the point in which people are fined different amounts.

Do you know the purpose of a fine?

Keyword is punishment. If a person who earns $30,00/year is fined $5,000 it'll mean alot to that guy right?

Compare it to Bill Gates, he earns hundreds of dollars per minute..this is true btw. It was in his book-anyway if Bill Gates earns 100,000 PER DAY. do you think Bill Gates is going to care as much?

The poor person will have to work harder to scrape by a living, he might not even have enough for food everyday, and yet to Bill Gates, he'll be like...mm'kay that's just great, here son, take $20,000 for lunch.

DUH they have to pay more money, otherwise the point of a fine is completely ruined. If they pay the small amount then it won't mean much.

But wheres the fairness in that? Equal crime, equal punishment. The rich are percieved to be these horrible people just because they have money, and everyone says they should be treated just like us...yet it comes down to them paying four times as much for something that someone else has probably done before?

If people are fined different amounts they still ought to be fined the same percentage that the punishment will still equally affect a rich or poor person.

Hence why most small crimes are punishable up to X amount of dollars, ie there's a burn ban in central Texas right now that's punishable with a fine up to 7,500 dollars.

So, to use ZeroRaven's example of a person who makes 30,000 a year which makes 5,000 a sixth of his income. To equalize that, a person who makes 75,000 a year will be fined 12,500. The two fines differ in amount but the weight of the fine is equal for both parties, the punishment is the same for both parties.

So, yes they fines should be flexible to ensure the weight of the punishment falls equally.

Except what's the point in a fine then if it's so little to the person that they probably won't even notice it's gone?

If a person who only makes about $50 a week is fined $1000, and a person who makes $5000 a week is fined the same amount ($1000) do you think that's fair? The first person would be screwed, while the rich person would laugh and swim in his bathtub of solid gold. Where's the fairness in THAT?

I understand what you are all saying, I just don't think that there should be a huge difference. Sure, that person is rich, and they can afford it, and I'm not saying that the rich are above the law, I just think that it is unfair for us to say that we should always have equal punishment with everyone (given huge gaps in fairness already) but the person I was debating with brought up the idea of jail terms(slight change of subject, but its where our debate lead). Lets say four people commited some crime. One is Fourty, the other is Twenty, and Another is Thirty. Should ten percent of their age at the time be spent in jail? The person who is Fourty spending Four years in jail, the person who is twenty spending two years in jail, and the person who is thirty spending three years in jail?

Jail time is different than fines as jail time is awarded for more serious crimes. Given that, percentages can't really play a factor.

Fines are a slap on the wrist compared to jail time. They're levied when you mess up but in a small way. Traffic accidents, small breaches of the law, etc.

Jail time is levied when you've really messed up and thus, because of the greater breaches of law the punishment should be that much more severe.

Yeah, the two are totally different, thats a given.

The only reason you're talking like this is because you're probably rich. I come from a rich previous generation, but my family is goddamn poor. Four people live in a 1 bedroom apartment. It's really crappy.

If a hobo killed someone, he couldnt pay, so he'd end up in jail.

If a rich guy killed, he'd pay the fine, and spend the rest of his life in paradise.

Equal protection under the law is a pillar of our legal system. That means equal fines for equal crimes.

There are certain factors that must be considered, fincially fines have different impacts on different people, in terms of jail time, how fincially well off the person is should not be a factor.

Time is worth the same to everyone EXCEPT depending on how old they are which is the factor they use in determining jail time. In fact sometimes it might be better for a poor person to get jail time, some jails let you get degrees and get educated. Sometimes I wonder if poor people are better off in jail instead.

It simply does not make sense, equal protection is destroying the original purpose of FINES. WIth equal protection the rich are basically above the law because they know that they won't get heavily fined and will keep on doing it...until..well that's another subject..fine increases, etc.

You know what Obl1v1on I think you're just saying that because you're a rich person and you don't want to be fined as much for committing crimes, whereas I'm just a poor azn kid.

And how's that different from what you're saying? She says what she says because she's rich and you say what you say because you're poor.

I have no opinion myself but I probably lean towards the same amount deal. It always pisses me off how people bag on the rich people for being rich, so what better why to get back at them then to spite them? When I'm rich, I'll make sure to let such people rot and then scoff at their decayed corpses as I drive by in my Benz.

So rewarding.

Thats the most rediculous thing I've heard today, sorry so to say.

Just because someone happenes to have more income, perhaps because they made more effort in life to obtain a better job, or perhaps they have more schooling behind them, does NOT mean they should have to pay more for the same crime... Examples being as follows.

Let's say Oblivion, YOU went to college, and obtained a Masters. You currently bring home $80,000 a year. You are arrested for posession of marijuana. That same day, another person, who maybe wasn't smart enough to pass college course, or perhaps just had no time for school IE: had children to feed, and had to work all their life, was also arrested for posession of the same amount you just were.

Is it fair, even if you ARE able to pay more, that you must be fined more, for the exact same crime, just because you are more successful than the other person?

In a different direction... Perhaps your parents sent you to school or you just didn't have kids to take care of, but you didn't rack in much more than that other person. Would you find it fair for you to still have to pay more than them?

No, it is not fair, in the least. Those who work harder tha others, to make more money, should not be punished more strictly due to their income, compared to others. Think of it this way, if its a matter of money going to society, IE: a traffic ticket fine... The person who makes more money, obviously pays alot more in taxes than the person who earns less. therefor, to use that as a reason to fine them more, is illogical, as they already contribute more, by force, not will, to the society simply because they earn more money each year.

Determing ones fine by their income is foolish. Everyone has the opportunity to get good paying jobs. the low income mother should not pay less a fine than the executive. They both were concious of their crime, and they were both willing to commite to it, no more than the other. And therefor, should be charged, fined, and or punished the same.

Now, if one was to have commited a similar crime, but to a higher degree, IE: more marijuana than the other, then the one who was in posession of more should be fined more. As it goes for the US, the larger the amount you have on you, the bigger the fine, and penalties.

Did nobody see my example <_<

If a fine is merely a drop in the bucket for a rich person, why even fine them at all? A person who makes say, $500,000 per year really isn't going to notice a $1000 fine.

Yes, that's a tad extreme, but under the "equal fine" thing, that could very well happen.

Well equal protection sometimes leads to people getting an unfair advantage, but by sticking firmly to the principals of equal protection, such things are minimized. It's a balancing act.

...What? I'm not rich, I just know what fair is! And why do you act like rich people are a bunch of dirty filty jerks just because they have money?! Since when does money have anything to do with someones personality? You need to get that in check because I'm tired of people always acting like rich people are a bunch of arseholes, because its not true and its really stupid of people to do that.

And yes, Atrophy, thats what I'm saying, If i read what you said correctly.

Exactly. (And I'm actually a chick. Haha)

SD told me that over AIM later.

Noneless, the purpose of a fine is a punishment.

The reason is not because the rich are rich, nor because they had a better education. They did something wrong, and the reason they should be fined more. Otherwise they will get away.

How about I phrase this a bit differently. Money does not mean the same to people right?

If I were to spend $300 on web hosting (ouch! I did do that a year ago), and Bill Gates spends $300 on web hosting. Who will feel it more? Me or him?

Likewise, this applies to fines too.

It's nothing with them having a better education, heck a small percentage, well maybe not small but a faction of them got it though the lottery or inheritance.

Simply put, it's not effective.

This could bring up another debate, why should there be juvinial courts? They're people like adults are! So what if their brains are undeveloped? Shouldn't they be treated the same way?

Note: The above sentances about the courts don't show my views, I just used it as an example.

Their brains aren't undeveloped. When you kill someone, would you know what you were doing? You would know its wrong. Those courts are pointless. There is no reason to have them, a crime is a crime, no matter who commits it.

Of course. Which gives good reasons that despite how rare, how unlikely that if a baby managed to somehow kill a person they should be held accountable.

Oh lord, now you're just being unreasonable. Get a grip on reality, a baby isn't going to kill someone! Now a fourteen year old kid killing someone, thats when its real. There shouldn't be a different court for that, the kid knows its wrong, humans know that taking the life of another is wrong, they know what they are doing.

I wasn't saying it was possible, I meant theoritically, and I said even how rare. I was talking in the event it occured.

Try interpreting my posts differently.

You do understand that there are things such as bursts of emotions when people get angry over something and want to kill. Also alot of the kids take drugs, smoke pot, or some have mental problems.

It's been scientificily proven that their brains are still undergoing a stage of developement.

Then THATS where they go wrong. Not only did they make the stupid decision of doing illegal substances, but they also commited murder. So thats where they go wrong, because no one forced them to do those things, and as for the emotional problems, I admit I've never had emotional problems, but there comes a time when you should realize when to be reasonable. And if you are seriously that whacked in the head to kill someone because of an emotional fit, you are a danger to society.

You've never had emotional problems.

Yes there are people who get so emotionally moved they feel the need to kill somebody, but you wouldn't understand. So when you do get emotional problems, come back and post here.

Have YOU ever felt the need to kill someone because you got too emotional? If you have, and to the others that have, filter it some other way. Play a sport or something, don't KILL someone, because then its just stupid, and in court they aren't going to let you by with just saying "Actually, Judge, I'm a bit crazy, so you know, I had a reason." because thats NOT how it works.

When you screw up, you screw up, and saying that you got to emotional isn't gonna cut it, it will just mean you'll do it again, and boy howdy, yeah, thats a GREAT way to win over the idea that you should be let back into society!

Of course I've felt the want to kill somebody over something. I get frustrated or angry, but I haven't killed somebody.

Some get frustrated to the point they kill somebody, it does happen. And when you're at that stage, very few think clearly enough that they think "oh maybe I should just take a nap, or play a sport".

And yes, that is indeed a valid reason, there are people, well the lawyers use the excuse, "My client is mentally ill, he may not have been aware of what he was doing".

Yes people do use that excuse. And yes emotional should be a valid reason. Killing a person out of pure cold blood just for fun isn't the same as a 10-year old who got emotional and got angry over something and killed somebody. You can meet that 10-year old and you wouldn't think they would kill somebody. That is how it works.

And if you've never gotten emotional, seriously, then I don't know what to say.

I'm a teenager, of course I get emotional, but not to such a drastic point as to do something seriously stupid.

Well then there are people who do.

Then they should either be in jail or in a mental hospital.

She then. Pardon my ignorance ^_^;

Haha, not a problem, its not like I have done anything to make you assume anything else :D

*runs to go change name to Obl1v1woman.*

If they killed somebody would you still think that?

Feeling frustrated and angry enough to do something violent such as attacking someone or even trying to kill someone and actually acting on those impulses are too vastly different things.

And yes, mental disease or defect is a valid defense, as is temporary insanity. It happens. There are emotional hotbuttons for every person and push one too many times - or merely push the right one once - and you'll set somebody off. ZeroRaven's right about people not thinking clearly at some points, hence the "temporary insanity" defense that does work. When you get worked up to the point you want to see someone dead, you don't think clearly and the rational parts of your brain just don't have input into your actions. Or to put it another way, the Id wins over the Superego for a brief time.

So, saying that everyone who gets so worked up, to the point of feeling violent, ought to be jailed or hospitalized isn't really a logical thing to say because sooner or later, you'd have most of the population put away. Emotions are part of who we are and we're not perfect. Saying otherwise starts us down a dangerous road.

I'm not saying that they should be put there for thinking it, I'm saying that thats the proper place if the act on it.

Your point? Ok, lets say it doesn't faze them. ok, they commite the crime again. No ticket this time or fine. Its jail time.... They will learn sooner or later. If you commite a crime twice within 20 years or so in the US, you wil not be given a small fine by your standards, but a much larger one, same for anyone else.

Take my posession example. You get a fine the first time. Second you get jail time. You can't buy your way out of jail. You can pay for bail. And lately, criminals have been given million dollar bails. So, technically, not a single person will look at a million dollar bail and giggle. Not even Bill Gates, since it would be the cause of slander to his name, as well as company.

If I go to college, get a good job, and earn my living and make that $500,000 a year, which will never happen, but if it did. I refuse to beleive I should have to apy a bigger fine for the same crime some dumb worthless hobo commited. UNLESS! Unless that person lacks the mental ability to understand what they did was wrong.

If you understand posession or whatever is a crime, and you commite that crime anyways, there should be no consideration. You pay the fine, you do the time, whatever.

End of story.