When in finland........................

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, for an executive in a Porsche Turbo, whats a 150 $ ticket? nothing, he can afford to do it over and over again, while at the same time putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk at the same time.<span id='postcolor'>

Bleh......

If he did that here, in enough time his license would be removed. Deterrences don't work. America has the death penalty as a deterrent, but still has the highest murder rate in the Western world.

Tyler

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 30 2002,14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 30 2002,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that is how it should be with all fines. Fines should be based on percentage of earned income and not on a fixed sum, otherwise the poorer people will get hit hard and rich people wont care if they break the law.

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you know gunball races! There is a pretty famous one here in Europe: a crowd of millionaires has to drive along a given track, which usually goes right across europe, as fast as they can. Of course since it is not an official race, the police tries to stop them, which of course is pretty difficult since they drive the fastest machines you can buy for money. But if they get caught they pay tremendous amounts (but do they care?)

kind of very capitalistic and nouveau-riche, not realy my style. But I thought I should add that little story here!

Dont believe me? Article<span id='postcolor'>

you dont really need a fast car to catch another fast car, one thing over here that our police learned is that when police are in pursuit, more inocent by standers could get hurt much more easily, the best tatic is to have a hidden police man close a certian area where the suspect is going than set tire spikes, tires pop diver has 2 options pull over or give up, keep goin till tires peel off and drive on the rims, and after wards the whole wheel will fall off and you would be captured only get a BIGGER fine and a LONGER sentance in jail.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ May 30 2002,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ahh yes, but think of it this way Assault: The only way to keep people from doing things that are against the law is to make the consequences for that action so unpleasant that they will either be deterred from it, or wont do it again. Now, for an executive in a Porsche Turbo, whats a 150 $ ticket? nothing, he can afford to do it over and over again, while at the same time putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk at the same time. So, you hit him where it hurts. After gettin nailed with a fine like that, do you think he will be speeding again? I dont think so. The percentage by income message is the only way to do it fairly, so that a blue collar worker making 30,000 a year wont get nailed with a ticket that will break him financially.<span id='postcolor'>

heh, a guy with a fast and really expensive car who speeds all the time..... best way to REALLY hit'em ware it hurts would be to maybe blow up his car? i bet ya he wouldnt do it a second time

[Longinius 1]

"If he did that here, in enough time his license would be removed. Deterrences don't work. America has the death penalty as a deterrent, but still has the highest murder rate in the Western world."

Thats what happens in Finland aswell of course. Its not only fines, like allready stated. If you think its fair for one person to pay so much money that he can't afford to properly feed his family and for another person to pay less than he gives one of his kids weekly, well, then that is your vision of fairness.

I also assume you think its fair that just because a person can afford a bigshot lawyer he gets off easier than a person with a not so famous lawyer?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think its fair for one person to pay so much money that he can't afford to properly feed his family <span id='postcolor'>

If he can't afford to feed his family, I doubt he would even own a car in the first place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also assume you think its fair that just because a person can afford a bigshot lawyer he gets off easier than a person with a not so famous lawyer?<span id='postcolor'>

Cases are lost for several reasons, allow me to name a few:

A. The accused is truly innocent.

B. A shitty case was built by the police/crown.

What does being a famous lawyer have to do with it? Even famous lawyers still have to convince a Judge and/or a jury.

Tyler

[ralphwiggum 6]

unfortunately money does matter when it comes to selecting Lawyer.

If you have a lawyer that is convincing jury pretty good by using good skills and argument, demand for him goes up, making him costlier than others.

[Longinius 1]

"If he can't afford to feed his family, I doubt he would even own a car in the first place."

Bull. I own a car. If I was fined 2000 SEK (200 USD) this month that would seriously hurt my economy. I can imagine what it would do to a family with two kids and even more bills to pay.

"What does being a famous lawyer have to do with it? Even famous lawyers still have to convince a Judge and/or a jury."

So you are saying that it does not matter who your lawyer is or how much he cost? Uhm, ever heard of OJ Simpson? Think he would have gotten off if he wasn't rich and famous and could afford a good lawyer?

Here in Sweden we have lawyer named Leif Silbersky. He is probably one of the top lawyers here. He only takes on cases of very dubios nature. Most of the time his clients are guilty. Most of the time they get off free or with a seriously lessened sentence. Why? Because he is Leif Silbersky. That simple.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bull. I own a car. If I was fined 2000 SEK (200 USD) this month that would seriously hurt my economy. I can imagine what it would do to a family with two kids and even more bills to pay<span id='postcolor'>

Well, then don't speed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhm, ever heard of OJ Simpson?<span id='postcolor'>

I knew you would bring that up. OJ might have been guilty, there is no way we can prove it. The family of Nicole Simpson had good/high priced lawyers too. OJ got off because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, the police did a shitty job of collecting evidence. (ie, tainted blood samples)

Another reason he got off was probably a race issue, I'm sure the jury knew that if they found him guilty, alot of black people would be pissed off along the lines of; 'he was only found guilty because he was black.....blah blah blah' and start rioting. Well, LA was no stranger to city-wide riots and I bet the jury was conciuos of that issue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the time his clients are guilty<span id='postcolor'>

You are just speculating, you don't know wether a person is guilty or not, you can't prove it. Legally you can't call someone guilty unless a legal court has proven that fact. That's why courts exist.

Tyler

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ May 30 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fining people based on their income is fucking stupid, nothing you say can convince me otherwise.  

Why should people be punished differently for the same damn crime? You don't need to fine rich people more money to 'teach them a lesson'.

So there!

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm.. believe it or not but, I agree with Tyler on this one. The Finns have an interesting idea there, but very dangerous. Changing the punishment based on the income of the person who comitted the crime sabotages the 'all equal before the law'. It could be easily abused.

Say for instance that a very right wing (as in conservative) party comes to power. They could reverse it and say:" Rich people pay more taxes then poor people, so they have already payed their fine indirectly.". What if that law is applied to more serious crimes like murder: "Yes, he killed him, but since he is a major contributor of money to the state, we will skip the punishment this time".

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm.. believe it or not but, I agree with Tyler on this one. <span id='postcolor'>

Holy crap!, don't scare me like that.

Honestly, as soon as I saw your name I thought 'oh God, here we go again...'

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They could reverse it and say:" Rich people pay more taxes then poor people, so they have already payed their fine indirectly.". What if that law is applied to more serious crimes like murder: "Yes, he killed him, but since he is a major contributor of money to the state, we will skip the punishment this time".<span id='postcolor'>

Very true indeed, one little change in a constitution or line of thought that goes against it's original intensions can be used as a precedent by others for more drastic changes in the future.

Tyler

[Longinius 1]

"You are just speculating, you don't know wether a person is guilty or not, you can't prove it. Legally you can't call someone guilty unless a legal court has proven that fact. That's why courts exist."

I don't expect you to be familiar with Silbersky nor his clients since you aren't Swedish. But some of the people he has defended include one of the guys that lit fire to the discoteque in Gothenburg, killing some 60 people. He defended Jesús Alcalá, a man who is quite clearly quilty of fraud (still in court). Marjasin, a swedish politician who also comitted fraud (he got of free last I heard). A policeofficer charged with brutality (caught on film), got off free. I doubt any of these people would get the favorable verdict they got without Silbersky. Like I said, the guy only takes extreme cases noone else wants to touch.

"Say for instance that a very right wing (as in conservative) party comes to power. They could reverse it and say:" Rich people pay more taxes then poor people, so they have already payed their fine indirectly.". What if that law is applied to more serious crimes like murder: "Yes, he killed him, but since he is a major contributor of money to the state, we will skip the punishment this time"."

For once I disagree with you The example you bring up is the direct oppsite and not really relevant. We are talking about fines here, not murder or rape charges or anything like that.

I ask again, is it fair that a rich person pays a fine he wont even feel, when another guy might get in serious trouble for the same fine, same crime? That isnt one bit fair.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 31 2002,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I ask again, is it fair that a rich person pays a fine he wont even feel, when another guy might get in serious trouble for the same fine, same crime? That isnt one bit fair.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a definite good point here. On the other hand, if you can't afford steak then don't buy any. Similarly, if someone has to be budget conscious, don't speed. You can't afford it and, besides, with the jalopy you're driving, it doesn't impress anyone.

I believe that such crimes should have two penalties:

1) fixed monetary penalties, for the purpose of punishment and for covering expenses of the police, court, etc.

2) an equivalent punishment for all that fits the crime, such as revoking a drivers license, empounding a car or imprisonment for repeat offenders.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe that such crimes should have two penalties:

1) fixed monetary penalties, for the purpose of punishment and for covering expenses of the police, court, etc.

2) an equivalent punishment for all that fits the crime, such as revoking a drivers license, empounding a car or imprisonment for repeat offenders.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly what we have in place here in Ontario.

1)A fixed set of fines, depending on the offence.

2)And a system of de-merrit points that, when accumulated, can lead to more severe punishments, such as the loss of a driver's license.

[Karppa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ May 30 2002,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Finland, speeders get fined according to their ability to pay<span id='postcolor'>

I hate double standards, what a load of crap.  <span id='postcolor'>

Heh, but i love public healthcare that provides everyone the same treatment whether they are wealthy or poor.

[Longinius 1]

"There is a definite good point here. On the other hand, if you can't afford steak then don't buy any. Similarly, if someone has to be budget conscious, don't speed. You can't afford it and, besides, with the jalopy you're driving, it doesn't impress anyone. "

So, its OK to break the law if you can pay the fine? Hmmm... OK. This means rich people can comitt crimes but poor people can't? Thats fair, for sure.

I agree though, if you can't pay the fine then don't speed. But that doesn't mean that people that are well off should be able to just because they dont have to consider a 200 dollar speeding ticket.

"1) fixed monetary penalties, for the purpose of punishment and for covering expenses of the police, court, etc."

Well, I still vote for the percentage. All people should be equal before the law. It is more equal to pay 15% no matter your income than for one guy to get ruined by a fine and another to not even notice the loss.

"2) an equivalent punishment for all that fits the crime, such as revoking a drivers license, empounding a car or imprisonment for repeat offenders. "

Agreed. I think this is how it works in most cases allready.

[sn1per 0]

How much money one has does not affect the jail sentence on murders and such in finland. The only thing person's wealth affects when committing a crime is the fines (and of course better lawyers, bat that's same everywhere)

Inb Finland criminals are treated with really strict system that treats everyone the same way, when it comes to "real" crimes. I think the U.S. system is far more worse that ours, good lawyers came somewhat easily set murderers free, it's all about the money. But please don't take me wrong, every country does it as they see fit.

Few nice facts about Finland, the tax on gasoline is 70% and if you earn enough (90 000€/year) the income tax is 70%

Really nice

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 31 2002,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Say for instance that a very right wing (as in conservative) party comes to power. They could reverse it and say:" Rich people pay more taxes then poor people, so they have already payed their fine indirectly.". What if that law is applied to more serious crimes like murder: "Yes, he killed him, but since he is a major contributor of money to the state, we will skip the punishment this time"."

For once I disagree with you The example you bring up is the direct oppsite and not really relevant. We are talking about fines here, not murder or rape charges or anything like that.

I ask again, is it fair that a rich person pays a fine he wont even feel, when another guy might get in serious trouble for the same fine, same crime? That isnt one bit fair.<span id='postcolor'>

What I meant is that it sets a precedence for stepping away from that everybody is equal to the law, for better or worse. I think however that the dangers of it are much higher then the benifits of such a system.

[theavonlady 2]

Hey! What's the penalty in Finland for false kidnapping reports?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 31 2002,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey! What's the penalty in Finland for false kidnapping reports? <span id='postcolor'>

stampeded by the polar bears on main street?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and if you earn enough (90 000€/year) the income tax is 70%<span id='postcolor'>

Holy crap! That's ridiculous.

We in Canada complain about our taxes being too high. The max allowed % on income tax is 50%, no matter how much you make. Most people here are taxed about 25-30% on income.

Welfare States cost money...........

Tyler

[Eza 0]

Actually Sn1per its more like 60%, but still VERY high.

and if you make money like normal people (say 20000-25000€ a year)

the tax is something like 25-35%...

I think the tax percentages are made thinking of the the gap between rich and poor people... there arent actually any SUPER rich people in finland (see Rich bastard)

But there is more "medium" paid people(and poor). So what most of the people in finland have in their hands of the salary after taxes is "ABOUT" the same... of course it cant be the same amount for everyone, but still there isn't that big gap between peoples salaries...

Any one of you other finns in this forum please dont start a flame war about salaries now but it really was the idea of the great "eduskunta" so that there wouldn't be a scenario that riches would get richer and poor people would get poor... Only now we all get poor...