The United States has long defined itself as a nation of laws. As part of that, the nation has always held forth as its ideal the concept of true equality before the law — that all people should be treated equally in civil and criminal courts.
It’s an ideal that has never been fully realized, in part because the courts keep tripping over laws that are intended to provide the yearned-for equality. The books are full of laws that prescribe specific sentences for specific crimes. But there are so many laws, passed by so many different legislative bodies, that the result can be great inequality in the application of the law.
As an example of the problems that can arise, look at the current move in Congress to eliminate the 100-1 disparity in the sentencing guidelines for possession of crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine. Possession of a mere 5 grams of crack — about .2 ounce — can result in a 5-year prison sentence. Crack is considered a drug of the poor. In contrast, people arrested carrying powdered cocaine — considered a drug of the rich — get very different treatment. A person must be in possession of 500 ounces of cocaine (more than a pound) to warrant a 5-year sentence.
Internal consistency in individual laws does not necessarily guarantee equality before the law. Laws must be consistent with each other and the law must be applied consistently.
A story out of Norway this week suggests another view of legal equality. A judge ordered a man who was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to pay a $109,000 fine. The high fine was not because the man had injured anybody or damaged any property, but because of who he was — the rich son of a rich shipping family. The fine was almost as much as his yearly income.
According to a copy of the verdict obtained by a news agency, the judge reasoned this way:
“The principle of proportionality implies that we should take into account the entire wealth of the person in cases where the defendant is more well off than most other people.”
It is an interesting idea — not only equality in judgment, but an attempt to impose equal pain and inconvenience on scofflaws of differing wealth. It is the sort of thing many Americans would like to see more of in the sentencing of fiscal felons.
And, perhaps, in the sentencing of people whose behavior puts innocent lives at risk.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
Sounds like Lady Justice just took a peak under her blindfold.
May 14, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't get how punishing the "rich" more for their crimes is some how equal. I'm sue Pat is correct as always, I'm just sayin' I don't get it. It seems like over correcting a problem. Over punish the rich now since rich criminals in the past didn't get punished enough?
May 14, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Maybe they ought to let the guy get his moneys worth out of that judge's hide. Just to be fair. The biggest problem with the "system" IS the judges that try to do something other than what they are paid to do.
May 14, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Two criminals.....same law violated......Both are fined one thousand dollars.....
.......criminal #1 makes $20,000 per year.....fined twenty per cent of his income.
......criminal #2 makes $200,000 per year....fined 1/200th of his income
..........same law violated.....same fine paid.....Excuse me, but I'm failing to see the equality here...Especially if the reason we punish people is to deter them from doing it again. If your rich enough the fine becomes so minimal there is no deterence.
Or is it that we are saying if you are rich enough its ok to break the law.
The judge's approach sounds very equal to me.
May 14, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
How would they know how much you make? Probably your taxes, huh? Politicians are probably OK with doing fines this way since they don't pay their taxes anyway.
May 14, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The question wasn't politician's taxes...the question was why basing fines on income is so unequal. Would it help if we rewrote the laws so fines were not a specific amount but a specific percentage of your income? Would that be equal enough then?
May 14, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I agree with the first part of Pat's article.
The difference in the fine for different drugs if they are equally the same should be the same.
However just because a person is rich or poor should have absolutely no bearing on the fine, but it seems that Pat and bisquit would fit into our present president's Marxist theme.
From each accoording to his means.
Which in other words means take from the rich and give it to the poor no matter wheather the poor worked for it or not.
May 14, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The question wasn't politician's taxes...the question was why basing fines on income is so unequal. Would it help if we rewrote the laws so fines were not a specific amount but a specific percentage of your income? Would that be equal enough then?"
I was joking with the thing about politicians. Yes, a percentage would be absolutely equal. Infact taxes should be that way too. A certain percent tax and that's what the government's got to work with and that's it. Make it work.
May 14, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
A flat tax would be perfect ( if taxes can be perfect ).
10% or whatever of your income. No matter what you make.
I just don't see how you could do it with fines.
May 14, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
biscuit - the first offense may be not much of a deterrent for the person who works harder and therefore earns more money. However, that's why we also have stiffer penalties for 2nd, 3rd and other multiples of the offense. If you go take a look at court logs, I would be willing to bet that the person making less money and paying 20% of his income for a fine is no less detoured than the higher wage earning person. They seem to be back time and time again as well.......
May 14, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
So we all agree on a flatrate percentage tax.....but some think that shouldn't be applied to fines.....and one says fines aren't a deterence anyway.
I might be convinced to change my view about the flat rate percentage fine.....but it would take more than just the believe that "it wouldn't work" to do so.
As far as deterence goes...the only time deterence is assurred for the criminal is when the punishment is capitol....
.....so as with capitol punishment, the deterence factor is aimed at other potential offenders. Well believe me, 1/20th of my income would deter me a lot quicker that 1/200th or 1/1,000,000. Get my drift.
May 15, 2009 at 4:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Pingeon.....
At the risk of having to be called a socialist, faciast, (which aren't even close to the same thing), commie pinko leftist liberal, I just have to take issue with your assumption that people who make more money aare automatically the hardest workers. Sometimes they certainly are...but not always. In terms of real work...I will bet that the guy on the business end of a bore drill in the bottom af a coal mine is working harder than the dude in the air-conditioned office up top-side.....and he is also making less money.
....And this doesn,t even take into account those guys....(and we all know a few), who are living large off daddys hard work and have never hit a lick in their lives. I for the life of me can not understand this feeling that seems to be so prevelant amoung conservatives that the rich are somehow always deserving and always above reproach.
....If somebody can explain this concept to me, I would be very happy to listen.
May 15, 2009 at 4:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"I for the life of me can not understand this feeling that seems to be so prevalent among conservatives that the rich are somehow always deserving and always above reproach."
I think it's probably an overreaction to the lefts hatred for the rich and their assumption that all rich people(except themselves of course) are evil. I personally appreciate some rich people because they are the ones that own companies that employ people like myself. With employment comes income with income comes food,clothing and shelter all of which I enjoy. It's kinda like the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you."
May 15, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think its an interesting concept, and one that deserves some consideration. I'm not sure how well it could or would work out however, because for the truly wealthy, it still isn't going to hurt as much. For instance, say I commit some heinous crime and the gov fines me half of what I'm worth or garnishes half my wages. Well, I'm flat broke now, I can't make my payments, I start losing the half I still have. Bill Gates is worth, say, $50 billion. He may cry alot but I think he will still manage to eke out at least a meager subsistence-level living on his remaining $25 billion. So there's no way any system could every be completely 100% fair, but again I think the idea has merit. Just as we're taxed accordingly, maybe fines should also be applied on a scale.
So, under Obama's new plan, since people who don't pay any taxes are going to get money from the gov, does that mean when the truly poor commit a crime, they will be rewarded instead of fined?
News flash: Conservatives don't all believe the rich are always deserving and above reproach, just as the left doesn't hate all rich people. Conservatives only feel that the rich are deserving & above reproach when THEY are the rich ones in question, and the rich left only hate rich conservatives..... (oh, and they don't like to pay taxes either, as evidenced with our Cabinet appointee's - only rich conservatives should pay :)
May 15, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Interesting thought about the poor beinging rewarded instead of fined for their misdeeds.
And open_eyes your comments about the rich.....both left and right.....are right on the mark......and that means the bullseye not the conservative side of the mark...lol
May 15, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
So let's do away with income tax all together.
Have a nation wide sales tax.
That way everyone pays whether they are working or not.
Whether they are tourists or even a novel idea, they would even pay if they were illeagal.
But we digress, I still think it wouldn't be fair and equitable to charge rich more than poor for crimes.
Equality under the law would then cease to be equality because we would be charging different people different prices.
May 15, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
People will start bartering everything to get around that. And you can bet the biggest "traders" of all will be...... corporations....... I like the idea somewhat, but then again, it will have its loopholes.
We base child support and alimony many times on the income of the one paying...... I'm not suggesting jail terms be metered as such, but $$ fines? Well, at the very least, I think those who scam people out of millions or more of $$ should pay back every-last-penny-with-interest...... and THEN get fined....... and waterboarded to divulge their secret off-shore account numbers........ :)
May 15, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I certainly agree that to add the same principal to jail terms would be grossly unfairand not at all equal. But if we were to base our income tax on the assumption that it was fair to tax everybody the same percentage....even though that would not be the same amount....I fail to see why it would not be equally fair to levy fines the same way.
Why is it fair when it's taxes...and wrong when its fines?
May 15, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
One might consider alimony (not child support) a form of "fines" (I'm sure I'm going to catch some heat for THAT one - LOL) - and it is usually based on income........ I see pro athlete or celebrity exes getting more in alimony every month than I make in 3........ and everyone thinks that is fair, so why not financial fines? After all, the whole point is punishment and deterrent - how does $5,000 fine punish & deter a millionaire as much as someone making $20,000/year?
I'm reminded of the parable in the Bible of the poor woman who gave 2 coins at the temple offering...
May 15, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
biscuit - You mistake hard work for physical activity and sweating. That's not always the case. The reason the guy in the office on wall street is making more than the guy mining is because he has put more into his job. He sacrificed 4 (probably more) years of earning potential to get an education. Most of them sacrificed more years to get a masters degree. After this, he started an entry level job (yes, in an office) at a salary probably less than what the miner was making by now. As time went on and the office man proved himself, he was given more and more tasks and responsibility. Soon, he is responsible for overseeing the operations of some area. Anything and everything that happens in this area is directly his responsibility. If it goes smooth, he is rewarded with a higher salary. If it does not go smooth, he is fired. Meanwhile, the miner is only responsible for digging that coal out of the ground and placing it in the cart so it can be hauled to the surface. As long as he digs that coal, he won't be fired (baring exceptions to the rule).
Both of these people knew the salary and potential raises when they started their career paths. Yet, the miner still chose to go into mining. There's nothing wrong with this profession. I admire the people that do it. However, he should not choose that profession expecting to make the salary of a wall street manager because it won't happen. What I am saying here is that you and only you are responsible for your own career path. If you want something, find out what you need to do to obtain it and it go after it.
Your example of the rich guy that funnels money to his son is not relevant. This is an exception to the rule, not the standard. I don't agree with it any more than you do, but it is everyone's choice what to do with their money and I don't have a right to tell the guy he can't give it to his son.
May 15, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Open eyes - that's the point I was trying to make earlier. It doesn't matter what the fine is, people won't be deterred. The people making less money are back in the court system time and time again. I know that sounds harsh and stereotypical, but go look at the court records.
May 15, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You have a good point, Pingeon, there are those who are not deterred, but I think there are a few that are, also - but they are probably in the minority. I mean, I'D risk a $5 fine to waterboard Nancy Pelosi to get the truth out of her, but a $50,000 fine would probable deter me - LOL
And you're right on with your career scenario, except for the very end. You forgot once you get to that pinnacle, even if it goes smooth, and you perform admirably, then they outsource your job overseas and can you. But I suppose the same thing happens with the guy digging coal (or cutting meat) they'll always find cheaper help somewhere, somehow.........
May 15, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Pingeon....I understand you point about hard work vs. physical work...and its a point well taken.
I do however still take issue with your position on deterence. You can't use recividism to measure the effectiveness of deterence because all you are measuring are the cases where it failed. That measurement gives you no indication of the number of times deterence did work because those people are not in the court logs.
May 16, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Equality ! There is no equality, only those that have and those that have not ! Those that have, have the advantage, those that have not, well they just have not, thats why they are called the disadvantaged, poor !
May 16, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
methusla......you just hit a slam-dunk with that one my friend.
May 16, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The bottom line is the courts have always been stacked against the "disadvantaged poor". One doesn't have to look far to find longish prison sentences handed out for thefts of relatively small amounts...(especially as applied to minorities).....while it is equally easy to find corporate executive types who get a slap on the wrist and a golden parachute after ripping off millions.
......wait a minute.....you don't suppose that's why the rich are so oppossed to changes in the sentencing guidelines do you?......Hmmm,,,I wonder?
May 16, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
I recently read some commentary about the current administrations desire to choose someone with empathy for the supreme court. It asked the question "would you want the referees in the last superbowl to make their calls with 'empathy' "? Here is the link.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE....
May 20, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQE5PN...
May 21, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
I like the idea of fines by percentages. I don't plan on getting any of these fines, but it makes me feel a little better knowing that it may have taken the same chunk out of someone else. Justice should be justice. A fine is a means of deterrent, if it doesn't have enough of an impact on someone's wallet it won't deter the crime.
May 21, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )