Slashdot Mirror
$56,000 Speeding Ticket Issued Under Finland's System of Fines Based On Income
HughPickens.com writes Joe Pinsker writes at The Atlantic that Finish businessman Reima Kuisla was recently caught going 65 miles per hour in a 50 zone in his home country and ended up paying a fine of $56,000. The fine was so extreme because in Finland, some traffic fines, as well as fines for shoplifting and violating securities-exchange laws, are assessed based on earnings—and Kuisla's declared income was €6.5 million per year. Several years ago another executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle. Finland's system for calculating fines is relatively simple: It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two—the resulting number is considered a reasonable amount of spending money to deprive the offender of. Then, based on the severity of the crime, the system has rules for how many days the offender must go without that money. Going about 15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12 days, and going 25 mph over carries a 22-day multiplier. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland also have some sliding-scale fines, or "day-fines," in place, but in America, flat-rate fines are the norm. Since the late 80s, when day-fines were first seriously tested in the U.S., they have remained unusual and even exotic.
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
Except, if you read even the summary, you'll discover that they're taking half of estimated spending money, not half of your income. Someone living paycheck to paycheck would get an extremely small fine, while someone earning millions will be deprived of nearly half their income.
CA regs said you have six months to plate your new car. He just bought a new car every six months so what he did was legal.
Now for parking in handicapped spots, I'm all for crushing his vehicle.
I read the internet for the articles.
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules.
You can't have one without the other. Unless you deny the entire government the money from the fines, the rich will become the only ones targeted by traffic cops. It's already bad enough that police departments prioritize money over safety. It could perhaps become bad enough that the cops ignore anyone without an extremely nice car because the revenue is not worth it.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
The problem is fines are supposed to be for the encouragement of safe driving. It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue.
Change that multiplier to 1 and you may have something.
If the goal is to encourage safe driving then the fine must have some effect on the person being fined. If it is too low they won't care.
I agree that speeding fines are not for generating revenue, but that doesn't seem to be the primary factor in determining the amount.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just say that fine revenue above police administrative costs goes somewhere else, so the people issuing the tickets don't directly benefit.
Since these are local/state offenses, the obvious place would be the state general fund.
There's potential for abuse, of course - states might have to specify maximum admin costs.
I bet the enthusiasm for local speed traps would drop way off under such a system. Sounds win/win to me.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Printed in stone on the Supreme Court building.
It hurts revenue generation for the police force
Top Tip: In Finland the police isn't depending on 'revenue'. Policing Finland as a preset, defined budget. Any fines levied are a surplus to the states income, and police forces do not benefit in any way from their law enforcing activities. Finnish police has to account for security, safety and crimes solved, not for income from speeding tickets.