On the face of it the decision to fine someone according to their income is inherently unfair.

A bit off topic, but why? A few weeks ago Ant McPartlin was fined £86,000 for his drink-driving offence. At his hearing it was stated that he had an income of about £135k per week and his fine was two thirds of a week's pay. Imagine next up before the Beak was a driver on exactly the same charge but he was earning minimum wage (say about £300 per week). What does the court do, impose of fine of £86k on the second defendant, or charge Ant only £200? How would that be fair, whatever way round it was decided to go?

Assessing fines according to means is a basic principle of justice in the UK. It is supposed to impose a similar punishment on offenders with different incomes. Of course it's not perfect and I doubt Mr McPartlin would miss his £86k as much as the second driver would miss his £200. But it's one hell of lot fairer than fining both of them the same amount.

Does that mean that, in the same vein, a rich person who commits any crime should get a longer sentence than a poor one? I personally think that fines for crimes where the perpetrator hasn't materially benefitted from their crime should never be given - costs awarded against (as appropriate), yes, but fines shouldn't be used.

I'd rather the punishment fit the crime and its nature/level - whether that's community service (and not the 'easy' kind either - I mean HARD, public work) or time in jail, then that's all the better. I think that all too often 'fines' are handed out like sweets to virtue-signal or to (mainly) raise revenue for the Treasury - which its NOT supposed to be what its for.

"Does that mean that, in the same vein, a rich person who commits any crime should get a longer sentence than a poor one?"

If you are talking of custodial sentences then no. A custodial sentence of six months is likely to have a fairly similar effect regardless of wealth. A financial penalty, however is different. It is obvious that a £100 fine will have a greater effect on a person living on benefits than on a millionaire.

"I personally think that fines for crimes where the perpetrator hasn't materially benefitted from their crime should never be given - costs awarded against (as appropriate), yes, but fines shouldn't be used.

I'd rather the punishment fit the crime and its nature/level - whether that's community service (and not the 'easy' kind either - I mean HARD, public work) or time in jail, then that's all the better."

So how long in jail (or how many hours of unpaid work) do you suggest speeding motorists deserve (let’s say, those caught, say, at 35 in a 30 or 79 in a 70)?

A fine is a simple way to impose a penalty for minor transgressions. It takes some of the offender’s disposable income from them leaving them less to spend as they choose.

Edited by Middleman on 03/05/2018 at 21:18

Concrete - There are two separate issues here. A person's income has no relevance to being found guilty or otherwise of an offence. However, punishment for the guilty is another matter.

I still maintain that justice is blind. A persons social or financial situation has no bearing on wether they transgress the law or not. Likwise if tried and found guilty the same applies. The fines may be affordable for some, twas ever thus, but three or six points on the licence is still a deterent. I don't think it is a runner that a wealthier person would deliberatly break the law simply because they can afford the fines. It doesn't stack up. Getting caught a few mph over the limit is not exactly a hienous crime so why should one person be fined more than another for the same offence?? Would you apply that to Murder. You get 12 years if you are poor but 20 years if you rich? It goes against the grain for me. Sorry to disagree.

Cheers Concrete