I think fines that are proportional to your income or wealth are clearly a better approach than fixed fines. In practice, that kind of stuff can be really hard to figure out, but overall it seems sensible? There are lots of downsides to a highly connected financial system for poor people, but hopefully we can move towards scaled fines as something of a consolation for all of the downsides the poor endure.
The day-fine system is kinda interesting, because it recognizes that the impact of paying a $500 fine is very different based on your income.<p>I was surprised to learn that the UK experimented with it, briefly, but it's something that exists in several other countries for example Finland has had the system since 1921.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine</a>
I think the law should apply equally to all. That means you don't give special breaks or come down especially hard on someone just because of their economic circumstances.<p>The funny thing about this opinion is that it is both extremely widely shared and extremely unpopular, depending on the context. Just seems invasive to me for a court to demand your personal monetary situation when determining how much to punish you.<p>The flip side to this is no-cash bail and people being allowed back on the streets after committing awful anti-social crimes. In NYC some people get released on no cash bail for 2nd degree manslaughter. But you know, economic circumstances<p><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/all-crimes-new-york-bail-reform/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/all-crimes-new-york-bai...</a>
Swiss has had fines directly proportional to the income for decades, and as someone that lived there, I fully agree with them.<p>Otherwise most rich people will only consider them a mere inconvenience, like in most countries.
Good. We should do more to tailor fines to income to the extent feasible. Otherwise it's just a hardship for the poor and an inconvenience fee for the rich.
The difference between equality under the law or equity under the law.<p>Equity is by definition relative. Equality is at least absolutely reasoned without the interference of relativity or subjectivity.<p>By what measure can a system of government be most fair and immune to corruption? The one where everyone has equal rights or the one one where some are “more equal” or “less equal” than others?
Like taxes, I'm a fan of proportional fines, at least for major offenses. The purpose of fine is to deter the perpetrator. If you fine a (m|b)illionaire 20 quid like the rest of us, how much of a deterrence can that be? I'm also a fan of increasing the fine exponentially for frequent and/or repeated offenses.
> The court can impose a fine of daily rates between 30 and 3,000 francs, or roughly $35 to $3,500, in cases like these, but settled on fining the lawyer 50 daily rates of 1,970 CHF.<p>How is the number of days determined - is it fixed by type of offense?
Compared to the person making minimum wage (say $11/hr) receiving a $450 fine paid on an installment plan, I think this sends the right message.<p>Income proportional fines should also have an alternative minimum fine that weighs their entire liquid balance sheet value because it's entirely possible decamillionaires to billionaires keep their live expenses allowances low compared to vast assets they control.
Rule number 1 when you go to Switzerland: it is the most anti-car country there is.<p>There are so many possibilities to make costly "lessons" if you do not prepare in advance. I lived in Zurich - lovely country, but what in other countries is more or less tolerated or fined with a price tag of two McDonalds menus, can hit you very hard.<p>A parking violation and driving a bit too fast downhill (it's a hilly region, isn't it?) because you overlooked a sign, and not only ordinary people will wish they were billionaires.