I once had to make a court appearance. The parking fees were confusing. I asked the lawyer how much parking cost, and her answer floored me: « I don’t know. I just pay the fine. »
I too could afford the fine, but that wasn’t the point IMO. I don’t adjust my behavior based on the penalty but rather try to do what’s right. The lawyer’s comment reminded me that penalties must be designed for people who break rules if they can. Proportional fines could have motivated that lawyer to pay the damn parking fee (and relieve the city of the expense of issuing, processing, and collecting fines).
This makes so much sense. My husband and I have often talked about the ineffectiveness of fines meted out in professional sports (specifically the NHL): you can literally end a guy's career, pay a couple of thousand dollars, sit out a few games, and then be back on the ice to continue earning as much money as you can for as many more years as your own career lasts, with no more concern than your own conscience causes you. It seems that a more just situation would involve the perpetrator losing his salary for the same number of games as the victim is unable to play: if he's on IR for the rest of the season, so is your paycheck.
A solid case for proportionate fines – what’s not to like ? The Scandinavians get so much right. With a 156 seat majority a UK government will never have a better time to legislate but they won’t, because it’s not in their manifesto and I am certain it was never even mentioned when the manifesto was being created. I forwarded this article to my MP though.
In Spanish cities the worst/repeat parking offenders have their cars removed and impounded by the municipal parking authority – it seems to work. The fee to retrieve the car more than pays for the operation. The main qualification for employment by the municipal parking authority seems to be being built like a brick outhouse judging by the supercar I saw lifted away – the car owner returned during the removal and hardly said a word :)
Perhaps a 'rice on the chessboard' method. where with each repeat offence the fine is doubled, it wouldn't take too many repeats before the richest corporation or individual modifies their behaviour. Banning protections such as Directors and Officers Insurance would also help focus minds, I believe that the late Charlie Munger said that it's not permitted at Berkshire Hathaway.
Nice piece, Brian. In America, white collar executives who commit financial crimes can too often write a check - as a cost of doing business - and walk away. Without even pleading guilty. (See Eisinger’s excellent book.) Not much of a deterrent, it seems.
But justice in America has become laughable. Even a convicted white collar felon - with the dystopian assistance and jurisprudential legerdemain of the highest court- can become America’s President…
Very good case for proportional fines. One potential issue is that with great wealth and power, it is hard to determine a day's earnings. Creative accounting can make this seem much less than it is. It seems that proportional fines with maximums and minimums could also be worth considering --- having a very low wage could result in a very low fine -- less than a dollar for doing something that is allegedly forbidden. This seems like a problem too.
Nice idea - needs some clever sales pitch before it becomes a reality.
Even in America, when large scale mishaps happen (like a corporate accident or a plane crash) insurance payouts are not always exactly the same for every person - many times it's based on the earning potential lost (sort of a morbid lifetime value calculation). So there is precedent to cite similarities to.
Also, taxation is very much in the proportionate regime (if you ignore capital gains for now). Essentially asking how many days of your work life do you want to donate (via taxes) to the government. So extending that to punishment is an easier sell than saying 'finland does it well'
There is also merit in establishing the prison - lost earnings equivalency for the sales pitch. When you send someone to prison for a small offence, essentially you are docking some of their earning potential for the days they were incarcerated. So why not apply that in $ form for non-serious , non-repeat offences? Dock n-days worth of pay for that person rather than anchoring on a fixed amount. This approach yes-ands the existing system while avoiding framing it as 2 people committed an offence but one paid 10x more than the other - which immediately feels unfair.
“Fixing” tickets, parking/speeding/traffic, etc is one of many political “perks” enjoyed by police officers, city officials, court officers and so on. Such corruption has aways existed Aways will. You can’t experience your authority unless you can exercise it. Petty people have petty ways
There seems to be no brainer solutions for a lot of things which are cheaper and more efficient but politics and public opinion prefer media baron driven headlines. Why starmer prefers that to the boring grind of getting stuff done which he has spent his professional life doing is beyond me. I know let's build more prisons!
Good piece again… Reminds me of an article I read a while ago about a staff member in a fast food outlet in central London looking out the window at a parking meter, and realising that meter was taking in more money per hour then their hourly rate. Add in that if you didn’t even bother to park legally and pay the meter but just paid the fine; it says so much about inequality let alone injustice.
Interesting idea, seems a good one. One thought on the cars. Why not have them towed to a "super careful" lot for expensive cars, that coddles them with coverings to keep out the rain and prevent scratches---and then because of that care charges an arm and a leg to release them?
Sad to say Cheez Whiz is out of stock at my local Walmart, which is about an hour away. Either folks in the far south of Seattle have wretched taste or perhaps the stuff is an import? Seattle proper has the good taste not to have many if any Walmarts. I once years ago looked to see the nearest, and it was only "a few miles away" but neglected to mention that those miles were across Puget Sound and involved an hour long ferry ride.
I’ve always been a fan of corrective as opposed to punitive or retributive action. (Although, I believe that I could be convinced that death might be the only humane and corrective action appropriate in certain cases). My big concern though is criminals who find legal crimes or work to have crimes they would commit legalized.
Those crimes are frequently neither corrected or punished and are not only rewarded but can even be praised.
Inconvenience is generally seen as more costly to the rich than to the poor. Clamp those Maseratis, or better still, tow them.
Great article.
I once had to make a court appearance. The parking fees were confusing. I asked the lawyer how much parking cost, and her answer floored me: « I don’t know. I just pay the fine. »
I too could afford the fine, but that wasn’t the point IMO. I don’t adjust my behavior based on the penalty but rather try to do what’s right. The lawyer’s comment reminded me that penalties must be designed for people who break rules if they can. Proportional fines could have motivated that lawyer to pay the damn parking fee (and relieve the city of the expense of issuing, processing, and collecting fines).
Thought-provoking article, as always. Thanks.
This makes so much sense. My husband and I have often talked about the ineffectiveness of fines meted out in professional sports (specifically the NHL): you can literally end a guy's career, pay a couple of thousand dollars, sit out a few games, and then be back on the ice to continue earning as much money as you can for as many more years as your own career lasts, with no more concern than your own conscience causes you. It seems that a more just situation would involve the perpetrator losing his salary for the same number of games as the victim is unable to play: if he's on IR for the rest of the season, so is your paycheck.
A solid case for proportionate fines – what’s not to like ? The Scandinavians get so much right. With a 156 seat majority a UK government will never have a better time to legislate but they won’t, because it’s not in their manifesto and I am certain it was never even mentioned when the manifesto was being created. I forwarded this article to my MP though.
In Spanish cities the worst/repeat parking offenders have their cars removed and impounded by the municipal parking authority – it seems to work. The fee to retrieve the car more than pays for the operation. The main qualification for employment by the municipal parking authority seems to be being built like a brick outhouse judging by the supercar I saw lifted away – the car owner returned during the removal and hardly said a word :)
Perhaps a 'rice on the chessboard' method. where with each repeat offence the fine is doubled, it wouldn't take too many repeats before the richest corporation or individual modifies their behaviour. Banning protections such as Directors and Officers Insurance would also help focus minds, I believe that the late Charlie Munger said that it's not permitted at Berkshire Hathaway.
Nice piece, Brian. In America, white collar executives who commit financial crimes can too often write a check - as a cost of doing business - and walk away. Without even pleading guilty. (See Eisinger’s excellent book.) Not much of a deterrent, it seems.
But justice in America has become laughable. Even a convicted white collar felon - with the dystopian assistance and jurisprudential legerdemain of the highest court- can become America’s President…
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Chickenshit-Club/Jesse-Eisinger/9781501121371
And now that felon is pardoning all like convicted.
Very good case for proportional fines. One potential issue is that with great wealth and power, it is hard to determine a day's earnings. Creative accounting can make this seem much less than it is. It seems that proportional fines with maximums and minimums could also be worth considering --- having a very low wage could result in a very low fine -- less than a dollar for doing something that is allegedly forbidden. This seems like a problem too.
Nice idea - needs some clever sales pitch before it becomes a reality.
Even in America, when large scale mishaps happen (like a corporate accident or a plane crash) insurance payouts are not always exactly the same for every person - many times it's based on the earning potential lost (sort of a morbid lifetime value calculation). So there is precedent to cite similarities to.
Also, taxation is very much in the proportionate regime (if you ignore capital gains for now). Essentially asking how many days of your work life do you want to donate (via taxes) to the government. So extending that to punishment is an easier sell than saying 'finland does it well'
There is also merit in establishing the prison - lost earnings equivalency for the sales pitch. When you send someone to prison for a small offence, essentially you are docking some of their earning potential for the days they were incarcerated. So why not apply that in $ form for non-serious , non-repeat offences? Dock n-days worth of pay for that person rather than anchoring on a fixed amount. This approach yes-ands the existing system while avoiding framing it as 2 people committed an offence but one paid 10x more than the other - which immediately feels unfair.
“Fixing” tickets, parking/speeding/traffic, etc is one of many political “perks” enjoyed by police officers, city officials, court officers and so on. Such corruption has aways existed Aways will. You can’t experience your authority unless you can exercise it. Petty people have petty ways
There seems to be no brainer solutions for a lot of things which are cheaper and more efficient but politics and public opinion prefer media baron driven headlines. Why starmer prefers that to the boring grind of getting stuff done which he has spent his professional life doing is beyond me. I know let's build more prisons!
Good piece again… Reminds me of an article I read a while ago about a staff member in a fast food outlet in central London looking out the window at a parking meter, and realising that meter was taking in more money per hour then their hourly rate. Add in that if you didn’t even bother to park legally and pay the meter but just paid the fine; it says so much about inequality let alone injustice.
Interesting idea, seems a good one. One thought on the cars. Why not have them towed to a "super careful" lot for expensive cars, that coddles them with coverings to keep out the rain and prevent scratches---and then because of that care charges an arm and a leg to release them?
Sad to say Cheez Whiz is out of stock at my local Walmart, which is about an hour away. Either folks in the far south of Seattle have wretched taste or perhaps the stuff is an import? Seattle proper has the good taste not to have many if any Walmarts. I once years ago looked to see the nearest, and it was only "a few miles away" but neglected to mention that those miles were across Puget Sound and involved an hour long ferry ride.
I’ve always been a fan of corrective as opposed to punitive or retributive action. (Although, I believe that I could be convinced that death might be the only humane and corrective action appropriate in certain cases). My big concern though is criminals who find legal crimes or work to have crimes they would commit legalized.
Those crimes are frequently neither corrected or punished and are not only rewarded but can even be praised.
It doesn't help the US any that incarceration, like almost everything else, has been turned into a profit center.