[DLTADragonHawk]

I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?

[Ekaros]

Fair punishment when it comes to fines should depend on the income. And maybe net wealth too excluding primary housing to certain median level of community.

Does a same fine have same deterrent level for both sub-minimum wage worker and billionaire? As that is clearly the goal of the fines. I think they should. And likely the billionaire should pay much higher relative proportion than someone at minimum wage as they have so much more disposable income.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

A fair verdict and fair punishment can also be one that dissuades the behavior in the future. It can be both.

[madeofpalk]

It seems to me that the only point of punishment is to dissuade?

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Mostly, though it could be used to dissuade that person from repeat offense, AND/OR to dissuade others from committing that offense, AND/OR as a retribution for the act.

An example of the 2nd one would be the death penalty, there is no 'corrective' behavior option for the person, cause they be dead. This is usually marketed as a deterrent for others, however studies have shown this rarely works. Most often severe punishments like death more appropriately fall under the 3rd case above.

[kennend3]

> If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?

You did not read the link at all, correct?

It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines".

> It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts.

The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people.

If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again?

Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear?

The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke.

Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.

[disgruntledphd2]

It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.

[kennend3]

I still find the whole idea of "settling" for money instead of going to court and getting a guilty/innocent ruling troubling.

This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system.

Wealthy and get in trouble - "fines"

Poor and get in trouble - court, potential jail time.

[ensignavenger]

> This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system.

This is absolutely not true in the US. Poor people are very much encouraged to settle without going to trial. In fact, the vast majority of all cases are resolved that way. Poor people relying on public defenders tend to get pushed into settling more easily than wealthy folks, even.

Indeed, it is the lack of public defenders that create a two-tier justice system more than anything in the US.

[disgruntledphd2]

Totally fair, I was just replying to the notion that she'd made more from the scam then she paid in fines.