Should fines be proportionate to income?

Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences. Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences. Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences. Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences. Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences. Should a person be fined proportionately to his income? This is a topic worth pondering.

Law is meant to uphold the five tennets of justice- restitution, where what society has lost due to a crime is given back to it, retribution, where the one who commits the crime is punished, deterrence, which instills fear in the hearts of the people who commits crimes, isolation, which isolates the criminal to make him repent for his crimes, and rehabilitation. In this case, restitution, retribution and deterrence are involved.

After all, it makes no difference at all whether it is a rich person, or a poorer person who parks at a lot reserved for the disabled- the end result is still the same- the disabled have nowhere to park. Since both cases inflict the same damage upon society, they deserve to be punished equally.

Also, the law should treat people equal- in the eyes of the law, all Man are equal. Thus, they should be fined equally regardless of how much he is paid. For example, if a person with an extremely high salary is charged for a petty crime such as shoplifting, it is not right for him to be charged 10,000 for it.

However, on the other hand, fining should be a form of deterrence. When people are deterred, they are less likely to commit the crime for fear of having that fine taken from him. However, in current situations, having 5000$ taken from him is nothing, on the other hand, it is a lot to the poorer person. For both the rich and the poor to be equally deterred from committing crimes, the fines need to be higher for the rich person.

Also, when companies are fined for crimes like worker abuse and pollution, the fines definitely need to be proportionate to how much they gain. For bigger companies like SMRT, they monopolize the Singapore transport market. If the same fine is charged, then they can easily pay for the fine, and simply not change. For example, SMRT was charged only 10,000 for train delays. This amount is extremely small for such a big company, and was easily paid. Therefore, we see that we need more fines in order to force them to improve their standards.

Thirdly, governments like Singapore have income tax, and since progressive tax is used in such cases, we can also apply such a case in the situation of fining. The rich are able to pay more without having too heavy an impact on their lives, and can support the higher fines. After all, the fines go back to the government to help other sectors of Singapore, and the money obtained will ultimately go towards helping the people in the country.

In conclusion, imposing fines that are proportionate to the offender’s income will lower the number of offences.

0 comments:

Post a comment

About this blog

Followers

About Me

My photo
Hi guys, I'm a student in Singapore, and this are some thoughts and essays I have written over the years.