Should The Punishment fit the Crime or the Criminal?
by: Justin Thyfault
I was listening to talk radio the other day when a story came up concerning the title question. In the case on the radio they were talking about a German law/potential law that the fine for speeding should be relative to the drivers income. The story went something like this: If two drivers got pulled over for driving over the speed limit an equal amount, the fine for the wealthier of the two should be a lot more than for the poorer driver.
The argument for this fine structure claims that if the fine was $200 for anybody speeding that speed, that poorer people are effected by the punishment more than rich people. To add some numbers to the story we'll say that Driver PoorMan makes $20,000 per year and Driver RichMan make $2,000,000 per year. The speeding ticket of $200 for PoorMan would amount to 1% of his income. If RichMan had to pay $200 it would be only 0.0001% of his income. The $200 fine wouldn't be that much of punishment for RichMan, nor a deterrent for him to speed again. However, if RichMan had to pay 1% of his income, the punishment would have the same impact as $200 for PoorMan. This would mean that RichMan would have to pay $20,000 for the same speeding infraction. So should the punishment fit the crime or the criminal?
We already impose different judgements for unique criminals in other areas of our justice system. The sentences for minors are significantly less than for adults. In most states mentally retarded/insane people are held to different standards than 'normal' people. The fine for speeding in a school zone or roadwork zone are double the fines than in other areas.
Are there areas where we don't currently impose different punishments where we should? Should somebody without a driver's license always be at fault for an auto accident because they were not even supposed to be on the road? Should a preacher be punished harder for molesting a child than a complete stranger would because the preacher used his position of righteousness? Should a legislator be punished more for breaking a law that they passed?
Or should we all be held to the same standards, each of us entitled to 'Due Process'? There are parts of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution that provide every citizen the right to be treated just as everyone else would be. Afterall, isn't Justice supposed to be blind?
Which brings me back to the title question; Should The Punishment fit the Crime or the Criminal?
Visit my Family Finances blog, currently discussing the cost of raising children
http://ourfamilyfinancesbydavethyfault.blogspot.com/
by: Justin Thyfault
I was listening to talk radio the other day when a story came up concerning the title question. In the case on the radio they were talking about a German law/potential law that the fine for speeding should be relative to the drivers income. The story went something like this: If two drivers got pulled over for driving over the speed limit an equal amount, the fine for the wealthier of the two should be a lot more than for the poorer driver.
The argument for this fine structure claims that if the fine was $200 for anybody speeding that speed, that poorer people are effected by the punishment more than rich people. To add some numbers to the story we'll say that Driver PoorMan makes $20,000 per year and Driver RichMan make $2,000,000 per year. The speeding ticket of $200 for PoorMan would amount to 1% of his income. If RichMan had to pay $200 it would be only 0.0001% of his income. The $200 fine wouldn't be that much of punishment for RichMan, nor a deterrent for him to speed again. However, if RichMan had to pay 1% of his income, the punishment would have the same impact as $200 for PoorMan. This would mean that RichMan would have to pay $20,000 for the same speeding infraction. So should the punishment fit the crime or the criminal?
We already impose different judgements for unique criminals in other areas of our justice system. The sentences for minors are significantly less than for adults. In most states mentally retarded/insane people are held to different standards than 'normal' people. The fine for speeding in a school zone or roadwork zone are double the fines than in other areas.
Are there areas where we don't currently impose different punishments where we should? Should somebody without a driver's license always be at fault for an auto accident because they were not even supposed to be on the road? Should a preacher be punished harder for molesting a child than a complete stranger would because the preacher used his position of righteousness? Should a legislator be punished more for breaking a law that they passed?
Or should we all be held to the same standards, each of us entitled to 'Due Process'? There are parts of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution that provide every citizen the right to be treated just as everyone else would be. Afterall, isn't Justice supposed to be blind?
Which brings me back to the title question; Should The Punishment fit the Crime or the Criminal?
Visit my Family Finances blog, currently discussing the cost of raising children
8 comments:
This is a really interesting question. What is your opinion on it, Justin?
Andrea,
In most cases I defer judgement to liberty. I believe we are all born purely free. Depending on where you are born, there is an implication that you consent to the laws of that land when you are born, regardless of the fact that you are only moments old and have no concept of consent.
My prejudice for liberty extends rhetorically to a point where 'if there is no victim, there is no crime'. However, in a society the majority have consented to have a set a laws that everyone has to abide by. I think it does restrict liberty, but in a lot of cases promotes a semblance of harmony, order and peace.
Having a fine for speeding in theory benefits all of society by tax revenue and the deterrent of speeding. But when you arbitrarily impose laws based upon factors unrelated to the crime (income), you as a society violate not just RichMan's liberty, but everyone's liberty.
Once the government (the people) makes rules and laws that have disproportionate effect on the liberty of one group of the people, a precedent is set to allow the restriction of anybody's liberties for any reason.
Our justice system is designed to protect the minority from the coercion of the majority. So in the case of the speeders, just because someone is rich (a minority), it does not infer that they should be forced to disproportionately succumb to the will of the majority (the not-as-wealthy).
So, to answer your question; if there is no victim there is no crime - no crime, no punishment.
Now that I have answered, what is your opinion?
P.S. I am currently writing a follow-up blog article that relates to this topic of justice. The article questions health care taxes imposed on the rich, harvesting organs from super-athletes, and requiring abortions from women under 30 years old. I hope to see comments from you, and anyone else, on both topics.
This is a fun idea. On the surface, it seems grossly unfair to consider anything other than the infraction, but our society is replete with examples of disproportionate treatments.
For example, in OJ'd first trial he bought a Dream Team of attorneys that few people could afford, so he bought his way out.
Another example is hate crimes. Why is killing somebody just for the fun of it less severe than killing somebody because you hate something about them?
In one more example, it depends upon where the "perp" lives. Murderers in Texas can get the death penalty, while murderers in California are not subjected to that possibilty.
Two adults go on a date. He spends $200 on the date and ends up having consensual sex: No legal problem there. But if the same fellow gives a prostitute $200 and they have consensual sex: That's a punishable crime.
If the mob wants to set up a numbers racket, it is illegal, but the states pocket many millions running lotteries and keep more money than the mob would.
Somebody possesses $10 worth of marijuana in 1969 and gets a felony conviction. Somebody grows numerous plants in 2010 and they are an authorized provider.
Regarding the German law you spoke of, it has nothing to do with being "fair" and everything to do with harvesting more money for the state. Just another way for the state to redistribute the wealth in the name of being just. They should just call it for what it is: a tax hike on the rich.
As a prosecutor in Phoenix I realize that fines are not effective. If you are too poor to pay they are an unrealistic burden. If you are wealthy enough to pay then chances are you won't care much. DUI is certainly not a victimless crime and as a result we should seek to curtail it. I say make a week-long jail term mandatory for all first-time DUI offenders.
Well john, that is intriguing. My own instincts tell me the fine would be a sufficient deterrent for the poorer folks, but your point about it being too harsh a burden is duly noted.
As for the richer folks, your idea seems excellent to me.
Do any states do that?
John,
I think 99.99% of drunk driving incidents are victimless. If you go to a bar, concert, sports game on any given night there are countless people (part of the 99.99%) that leave the place and drive while being above the legal BAC level. All but an assumed 0.01% make it home safely, and without incident. So who was the victim?
Your concept of a mandatory week long stay in jail is fine if the limit for getting an infraction is just. If the standard for getting a DUI was set to a point where if you were in the same room as someone getting drunk, I think we all could agree that would be a pretty stiff penalty. So what is a legitimate limit?
I know people who are much worse drivers when they are completely sober than other people I know that have drank several beers. Should we throw simply bad drivers in jail for a week because they pose an equal danger to society as someone who has drank five beers?
Justin, even if your number is correct that means one out of every ten-thousand drivers does not make it home safely and therefore there are plenty of victims.
However, I would accept that the level at which people are declared to be drunk is too low in many cases.
Post a Comment