12-02-2004 23:10									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Templar Ah, but the operative word is punishment. You can't punish Bill Gates by fining him $200. He'll give you the $200 and throw in an additional $500 if he can give you a kick in the ass. Nothing against rich people as a group at all (I know good and bad rich people actually). Why do you hate poor people so much that you want to fine them a disproportionate amount of their income when they break traffic rules?

actually u can. punishment is not a qualifier for severity. so stop abusing the english language.

in america there is a reason that "justice is blind." this is important and referes to my earlier point. punishments should fit the crime. all men equal under the law(enormous french morality thing here!). u didnt do nething wrong in acquiring ur money, u shouldn't be punished for having it.

	13-02-2004 02:05									#122
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Why is that silly? If you are a tax auditor for the government, will you look at large corporations first or SME's first? This is just prioritising limited resources.

Because the purpose of taxes is to provide money for the government. The purpose of fines is to punish people, NOT fund the government. The police should prioritise on those who speed more (though I doubt there is any demographic, besides young people, that would speed more often than another), not those who will provide more money in fines.

	13-02-2004 02:26									#123
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by yavoon in america there is a reason that "justice is blind." this is important and referes to my earlier point. punishments should fit the crime. all men equal under the law(enormous french morality thing here!).

Again, .1% of income is the same as .1% of income. Where is the inequality if the same percentage is applied to all?

	13-02-2004 02:36									#124
	Tired of ads?

No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

	13-02-2004 02:43									#125
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by skywalker No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income.

	13-02-2004 02:46									#126
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income.

Yes, but $500 is not the same penalty as $200. And yet 1% is not the same as .1%. You know what? If you imposed a penalty INVERSELY proportional to the income, it would still be the "same penalty" by your logic.

	13-02-2004 04:13									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: 'Equality' in this instance refers to the laws imposing the same penalties on all, not mathematical equality of numbers being the same. Here, .1% of your income applied to all is the same penalty - i.e. .1% of your income. Yes, but $500 is not the same penalty as $200. And yet 1% is not the same as .1%. You know what? If you imposed a penalty INVERSELY proportional to the income, it would still be the "same penalty" by your logic.

Yes, inverse income percentages (e.g. Income x 1/.1%) would create a penalty. It all just depends on how you define the penalty. If the penalty is defined in terms of percentage of income then equality is achieved by appling the same percentage to all. If the penalty is absolute dollars, then the same penalty in absolute dollars applied to all is equal.

My point is, it is no argument against percentage based penalties to argue that they are unequal punishments because they are equal if applied equally to all. There is no moral argument to be made here.

My argument is a policy argument - that is, percentages are a good policy for discouraging reckless driving. If you have a good policy argument infavor of absolute dollar penalties (can't think of one off the top of my head), fine. If you can think of a good policy argument for inverse percentage penalties (I seriously doubt it), fine. But stop the moral arguments about equality under the law.

	13-02-2004 04:30									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hey, you can all argue about how this is fair and everyone who thinks it's unfair is a nutty, but bottom line, we're not the ones who says 170 000 euro ticket for speeding is called for

	13-02-2004 09:27									#129
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Pekka Hey, you can all argue about how this is fair and everyone who thinks it's unfair is a nutty, but bottom line, we're not the ones who says 170 000 euro ticket for speeding is called for

I wish I had enough income to qualify for a 170K Euro fine.

	13-02-2004 10:38									#130
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by skywalker No, .1% of one person's income is DIFFERENT from .1% of someone else's income, in the same way that 2 > 1.

You are arguing the absolute value of these two numbers are not the same. Yes. So? They are not meant to be the same. Where's the problem?

	13-02-2004 19:43									#131
	Got spare money?

The Templar, me too!

	13-02-2004 20:56									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Templar Again, .1% of income is the same as .1% of income. Where is the inequality if the same percentage is applied to all?

obviously u didnt read the entire post

under the concept that "justice is blind" it would not be able to take ur income level into account. thats the whole point. u can't take non-related things into account when convicting someone.

roll it over in ur head for a lil bit, u'll get it.

	13-02-2004 21:53									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by yavoon under the concept that "justice is blind" it would not be able to take ur income level into account

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that's not what "justice is blind" is supposed to mean. It means justice will be applied to every single person who breaks the law (if that person gets caught), regardless of this person's background etc.

	13-02-2004 22:05									#134
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that's not what "justice is blind" is supposed to mean. It means justice will be applied to every single person who breaks the law (if that person gets caught), regardless of this person's background etc.

it means justice will be applied to everyone in the same manner regardless of their background.

not just "applied."

	13-02-2004 22:20									#135
	Suffering from ads?

The portrayal of Justice as blindfolded and balancing scales held in one hand against a sword held in the other is derived from Roman representations of their God Justicia.

I don't know what the significance of the blindness is.

Maybe it is to indicate that she will take no part herself in the loading of the scales but simply ensure they are held level and that she will enforce the outcome without any possibility (by reason of knowing who they are) of favouring those against whom the scales tip?

But that is speculation.

The corresponding Greek God is Dike, who is described as having piercing vision - able to see into and to weigh men's hearts.

	13-02-2004 22:44									#136
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by yavoon it means justice will be applied to everyone in the same manner regardless of their background. not just "applied."

So you are maintaining that background information is unimportant to the application of justice?

	13-02-2004 22:45									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger So you are maintaining that background information is unimportant to the application of justice?

only if it relates to the actual crime.

I'm pretty sure judges treat the courts the same way.

	13-02-2004 22:54									#138
	Full PM-box? Change here!

--"The corresponding Greek God is Dike, who is described as having piercing vision - able to see into and to weigh men's hearts."