Several countries use a dayfine system, we in Sweden have used dayfines since 1931, Finland since 1921, Germany since 1969, There are a few more countries using the system, but I could not quickly find any historical data about them.
A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of payment for a legal fine which is based on the offender’s daily personal income. It is intended as a punishment financially equivalent to incarceration for one day without salary, scaled to equal impacts on both high- and low-income offenders. An analogy may be drawn with income tax, which is also proportional to income, or even levied at higher rates for higher incomes.
Jurisdictions employing the day-fine include Denmark (Danish: dagbøde), Estonia (Estonian: päevamäär), Finland (Finnish: päiväsakko), France (French: Jour-amende), Germany (German: Tagessatz), Sweden (Swedish: dagsbot), Switzerland, and Macao.
Great idea but still unfair. It is the same as a high salaried person being able to afford quitting their job and take a couple of months to look for another or go on parental leave. They can afford it because they have savings. A day fine will also hit the poorest the most, because they don’t have savings to afford paying such a fine.
Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.
Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.
Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.
So the idea is that if something is a $10,000 fine, it will stop the average person from doing it, but it might not stop directors/owners of companies and it definitely won’t stop a company from doing it themselves.
If you believe one is wealthier because they deserve it, through success, hardwork, etc , then shouldn’t these apparent shining examples of success also be held to a higher standard?
Or should we somehow decide the economic cost of someone doing something illegal, then charge everyone that? For example: the risk of speeding increases quadratically (E =1/2mV^2), the higher the speed. I.e the risk of death. Do we then set a speed limit, anything above which is considered illegal. Above this level, a fine or charge is incurred based on the likelihood of a crash killing someone upto and including the cost of one’s life.
But then it’s legal to kill someone if you are wealthy enough, and the poor are inherently the most moral group.
Or we could flat fine it; which disproportionately punishes the poor. Which is like saying “ohh you are poor and that’s your fault, just like speeding. Get fucked lol”.
I’m sure that there are other options but it’s a good idea to consider the potential ramifications of fees, fines, and other punishment structures, and how they influence the society we live in.
It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money
Of course it does. A poor person might find themselves in a situation where they have to steal groceries or other necessities for pure survival. If I were poor and needed diapers and there was no governmental support program available I would also steal them. Or formula or whatever. A rich person can afford all of that. If they steal groceries it is for the thrill, not out of necessity.
Also, note that really bad crimes (murder for example) are not fined. In that sense it does not matter what the financial status of the perpetrator is. Although filthy rich people can sometimes even buy their way out of these crimes.
You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?
Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.
if the goal of the fine is to deter people from committing a traffic violation, the person making $150k will not be equally deterred compared to the person making $75k. If the fine has too little impact, it no longer works as a deterrent. This is especially true for things like parking tickets, where you aren’t necessarily putting yourself or others in danger like you might be for speeding (though, assuming the two people only differ in their income and all other variables – like how willing they are to drive dangerously – remain equal, then the point still stands).
Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn’t we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?
It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)…
stealing != traffic violation. while stealing may have a fine associated with it, it’s generally based on restitution for the goods stolen + legal fees etc. So, you’re moving the goal posts on me, and my feelings about how to handle theft of necessities is tangential to the discussion (for the record, my feelings are: if you see someone stealing necessities, no you didn’t).
You seem to not be getting that the goal should be equal deterrence regardless of income or wealth or whatever the most fair metric happens to be. IDK what the baseline fine should be, nor what the most fair way to scale the fines should be b/c i’m a chemist, not a sociologist or legal scholar. But at the end of the day, if the only punishment is a fine, the wealthy don’t have to give a shit.
Edit: for #2, let’s use time instead of money. If instead of paying a $1000 fine, you could do community service. But the “value” of your community service is tied to your wage/salary. So, someone making $10/hr has to do 100 hrs of community service, while someone else making $100/hr only has to do 10 hrs of community service. Is that still fair in your view?
Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).
Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.
Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.
Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That’s why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.
I agree that everyone should be equal under the law, but that doesn’t mean that fixed fines are fair. The same amount of money has a different value to different people, and that perceived value changes depending on one’s income and wealth.
IDK if you saw my edit in my previous response with the community service example, but I think that might help clear up where we’re diverging. If it takes me 10 hours of work to make enough money to pay the fine, but it takes you 100 hours of work to pay the fine for the exact same offense because our salaries are different, were we really punished equally?
I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.
Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.
If it’s posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he’d have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.
Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences because their time is more valuable? Do you at least SEE the parallel I’m trying to draw here?
And I already admitted that I don’t know what the optimal metric is. I just know that a flat fine that is the same for everyone, without taking into account their financial situation at all, is unfair.
Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences
Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I’m wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.
I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.
What I think is UNFAIR is trying to “convert” one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.
Well we went down a road that I think we need to track back.
Poor people committing “necessary” crimes is not the focus and should not be. The whole idea of necessary crimes that should not be punished is awful - we should focus on building a society where people don’t end up in a position where they have to steal (etc.) to survive. If we are already thinking of how to better jurisdiction I’d argue we have space to assume we can also better their situation in general. We want to deter them from crimes the most, yes, but not by scaring them with the consequences of being caught - we want to deter them by making them unnecessary. No person should be poor, period.
I think what this comes down to is the question of fines themselves. It has almost something catholic about it. You buy yourself out of punishment. I’d argue that this concept is flawed in itself, no matter how you adjust it.
My guess is that this is what the post was supposed to say. Money in itself isn’t too much of a fair concept, or a just one. But punishment, law enforcement, etc, should be, despite taking place in a capitalist society.
What it comes down to would probably be something like social service (my guess). Is the crime committed violent and does the perpetrator pose a severe security risk to society? Then a correction facility that focuses on healing, mental and physical health, rehabilitation and reintegration into society should be the choice. The crime was something that could also be fined? Cut the fine, make it a social service. Picking up trash from sideroads, cleaning public toilets. This will benefit the public/society and no one can buy their way out of it.
Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it’s the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)…
Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine’s money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)
A percentage of income still isn’t equitable though.
If you’re destitute a week’s income means you starve.
If you’re a millionnaire a week’s income stings bit doesn’t affect much.
If you’re a billionnaire there is a good chance you don’t technically have an income, and if you do you can lose half of your wealth without feeling it.
This is true, but you could still have a progressive fine. Very good point with the billionaire, though. They live in a completely different world, in terms of how their wealth flow works. Still, it seems like an alternative fine system could be worked out that would hit them hard.
The real solution is to remove the classes so high above everyone that the rules don’t apply. This is a difficult problem only because we’re talking about people who are so ludicrously wealthy a fine for literal hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn’t make them homeless.
I agree. John Oliver once referred to billionaires as something like a bug in the structure of the system, and I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis. Unfortunately, they’re a bug that’s not so easily dislodged. Until then, designing systems that are able to deal with their existence is the best way to deal with them.
The billionaire might not feel it, but the money gained could be significant for all sorts of good things that help lift the burdon of the lower class.
Blind to ____ / turn a blind eye to ____ / blinded by ignorance/bigotry/etc. / double-blind review Refers to Blind, low-vision, or sight-limited people. Often used as a metaphor. Consider instead: willfully ignorant, deliberately ignoring, turning their back on, overcome by prejudice, doubly anonymous, had every reason to know, feigned ignorance
I modded a niche outdoor community sub and I banned every bot that found its way there. Sorry, but we don’t need a metric conversion bot nor a grammar correcting bot.
There was one for a while that told you how many times you left a comment saying “nice.” It had a leaderboard and the top ones had done it some tens of thousands of times.
I suspect if you are trying to build an inclusive community but don’t have a lot of diversity already, the only thing you can really do to change the culture is to remind people to be considerate in the way they speak. And if most people who would be offended aren’t actually part of the community (but you would like them to feel welcome to join), then you might want some bot rather than a person to be the “narc” and remind people to be on their best behavior. So I guess if the mods are the only ones who want to be nice, then yes, it is a bit ridiculous because it will never work. Even if people change their language, they won’t be nice. But if most people want things to change, it could be a helpful way to both remind you to be inclusive and get the few people who would rather talk about how having to say bartender is censorship (without actually defending why they want to make a point of saying “barmen”) to realize that they either have to change the way they talk in that particular community or find a better fit.
Not really there are anti antifa centrists and leftists that are simply against extremist movements. At least where i live antifa is pretty militant so people basically group it with the fascists which is pretty ironic if you think about it. A long time ago i was also anti antifa but seeing the lenghts that “conservatives” go to fuck up everything we love im also swinging to a more violent leftism.
You would think so, but the people on my region that call themselfs “antifa” are fasist themselves. No tolerant on who you are or how you look if you are a “white straight male”. So yea, fuck the antifa organization. Im all anti facism starting with them.
Where I came from it’s the right wings, who wants you believe antifa is a criminal organisation which is far more extremist and radical than themselves.
This is just propaganda. Sure leftists use the term “antifa” more than the average not extremist people but this has nothing to do with the fact, that everyone who is against fascism is an antifa.
tl;dr: Sorting the “antifa” wording to the “baddies” is rightwing propaganda.
According to Wikipedia (I know, but it is a protected article), antifa is a loose organization of autonomous groups that use both non-violent and violent means. Based on that last part alone, I would say that is perfectly reasonable to NOT identify as antifa even if one generally agrees with their agenda.
As for vilifying the opposition, that does seem like just the thing the right wing would do to avoid taking responsibility for their own stupidity.
You just say fuck fascists, that is antifa, then you say fuck antifa that means fuck yourself? It is very simple to understand. If you are against fascism you are already antifa. Then stop. No need to fuck any more. You are the fascist and then fuck fascism because anti fascism is bad to your fascism but you hate fascism? Good luck with the self fucking puzzle
This is a stupid measure. I say that because every person I’ve dated, which isn’t a short list, puts their best foot forward when they start seeing someone. For some, that’s just who they are, they stay consistent, but IMO, this is rare.
For most, the “mask falls off” at some point and you get to see the seedy underbelly of who they are. All the “warts” in their lifestyle, personality, decision-making etc. Usually after you’re committed to a relationship with them and they get more conformable.
This, in and of itself, denotes a certain uncertainty in dating. The person you meet is not the person you will end up with after a few years. I recognized this in myself and decided for myself not to do it. There’s still parts of my personality I kind of restrain in spite of this policy because some of my darker humor can be rather off putting on the first take, and usually makes a bad impression if said so early into knowing someone that they don’t take it as a joke, which it was intended to be. It doesn’t help that I usually joke about things very deadpan, so new people tend to doubt when I say “it’s a joke” and jump to the conclusion that I’m just saying that because I’m trying to save face. Which I’m not, but that’s another matter.
My point is, even for me, you don’t meet the person, you meet their idealized view of what they want you to know of them. So someone who seems 10%/25%/125% better than your current partner, isn’t really a valid comparison. You’re comparing someone who you know their “ugly” side, to someone who you have only met their representative personality. Their % “better” may be artificially inflated because you don’t have the whole picture.
The other issue I have here is that while he’s correct that “not everyone sees marriage like that” or whatever, they should. Marriage is a vow. A vow is simply a commitment to uphold into the future, regardless of circumstances. During a wedding ceremony, you vow, before your friends, family, the officiant (a legal representative) and God (if you believe in such a thing), that you will love, cherish, have, hold, another person, in sickness, health, good times and bad, until you die. You’re making a very serious promise to do those things forever until your death, in front of everyone you hold dear.
Divorce breaks that promise, and a legally binding contract.
Personally, I couldn’t give any shits if others break their word with their marriage vows/contract, but the purpose of the vows is clear. This is a promise that should not be broken, and can only be terminated by death. Vows are supposed to be the highest form of a promise, one which cannot be broken. But people do it.
That’s the theory at least…
People’s misunderstanding of what that means, IMO, is mainly a lack of being educated on what the words are spelling out. People don’t take vows anymore except in marriage. It’s fallen out of fashion to commit yourself to something with a vow. Because of the relative scarcity of such vows, they’re only used in marriage now and the misunderstandings of what a vow should represent is staggering. The only other person’s who take vows in the current era are doctors. They take the Hippocratic oath, which is, in essence, a vow to “do no harm”, yet, it can easily be argued that harm is actively inflicted during every medical procedure. Whether placing an IV, taking blood, or doing surgery, you’re actively harming your patients; but it’s generally understood that such things are a requirement to help people. It’s still committing harm for the benefit of the patient, but it is harm nonetheless.
I’ll step away from that aside since it’s not relevant to the core point, that all of these comments made in the image posted by OP are a demonstration of this fundamentally short sighted thinking and poor understanding of the commitments you make.
I really like your view on this, I’ve had rare occasions where I’m contemplating whether I want to live the rest of my life with this person. I’ve felt bad about it before because it feels very dishonest, but I will always fall back to the fact that the person in question is a step down relatively speaking and doesn’t make sense to end my healthy current relationship. Being open about that is hard, because you feel like an ass even contemplating ending a relationship.
As someone once said, happiness isn’t having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.
Unless there’s a significant and unresolvable issue between you and your current SO, that is ongoing, it is probably the better choice to stay.
I’ll give an example: My college gf, who we will call Jen, because that was her name, lived with my midway through college, and we got along line peas in a pod, except for one thing. She was highly religious. Her belief was some form of Christian, I’m somewhere between a spiritualist/agnostic and atheist. My view is mostly live and let live on such matters. I frankly don’t care whether anyone has faith; the only time it’s an issue is when I’m preached to, that my beliefs are wrong or whatever and that God wants me to blah blah blah whatever. That’s my line. She wasn’t the preachy type, so I never had a problem with the arrangement. She, however, continually had little crisis attacks about it. Worrying over my soul or whatever, she was clear that according to her faith, I would be going to hell. For me, this poses no issue. I couldn’t care less what get faith thinks of what will happen to me after death. So I’m unbothered. However this concerned her greatly. It was raised time and time again, and I could feel more and more resentment of her faith, every time it did, but I’m not the sort to either be preached at, nor preach to anyone about what they believe. I didn’t make efforts to dissuade her of her faith.
It was literally the only thing we ever fought about.
What ended the relationship can be summarized by one statement she made to me near the end of the relationship. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of “I don’t want to be with someone, if I can’t spend eternity with them in heaven [after we die]”. To me, that was the nail in the coffin that solidified the fact that this was an irreconcilable difference and the relationship would not survive. I would not capitulate to being a part of a religion I genuinely did not believe in, and she would not compromise that stated objective, and so we were at an impasse that could not ever be resolved.
She’s a lovely girl. Like anyone, Jen had/has her problems, but they were far outweighed by her demeanor, care for others, consideration… Just everything about her was fantastic. Any other issues she had were very minor to me, and I hope she makes someone (who is of the same faith as her) very happy some day, and in turn, leads a very joyous life.
I still have a lot of love for her, even now, though in more of a friendship kind of way (“agape” love, if you will), and I will always think of her and wish her a happy life.
For me, I went on and found a very nice and lovely young lady, who shares a lot of the same traits, but in a different way, and also has more compatible religious views. (Not that young, it’s only a 6 year difference… I just don’t want that to come across wrong. Heh).
We’ve been together now for… Gosh, seven years? Or something? It’s never been a big priority for either of us to track anniversaries or anything, so I lose all sense of how long we’ve been together. It feels like she’s always been a part of me and right now, I can’t see myself ever leaving, and she feels much the same. We address issues head on with discussion as it becomes relevant, and we do not scream/yell/fight the same way most couples do. We deliberate, disagree, discuss productively. We even have agreed to disagree on things, but even that form of “fighting” is rare. Neither of us is so picky that anything becomes such an important matter to get angry about it. I’m very happy, and even if Jen were to reverse her decision and want a relationship, I would say no. That ship has sailed, I’m happy where I am and even with all the love I still have for Jen, I will not sacrifice my current relationship, nor would I hurt my current SO like that. I’ll be her friend, nothing more.
That situation may be compounded by the fact that my name and my current SO’s name are on the mortgage and deed for our home. Ha. Not the only reason, and certainly not the most significant reason, but still. We’re in this together and nothing can undo the bond I share with my SO. A ring will be appearing in the near future when finances allow for it.
The point of all of this is to demonstrate that there are irreconcilable differences that should be recognised, and with Jen, it took upwards of a year for that to surface and longer to become such an issue, that we parted ways. When you know that no such difference exists, then the relationship is worth trying to keep.
At the same time, if you’re so dissatisfied with the relationship that you’re entertaining the thought of finding a different mate, then I would advise that you examine why you feel that way and address that, with professional help if required. Being true to yourself and genuine with your partner is the only way to “make it work”. If there’s something that is leaving you wanting more, then you either have to adjust your expectations, or they will have to step up to meet your needs, or you’ll need to find someone who will. It’s not uncommon that you’ll simply need to find someone better suited for you than your current partner. It happens, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing to move on. Simply: over time that lack of whatever you need to feel satisfied, will evolve into resentment of your partner and lead to both of you being unhappy. That’s unfair to you and them. So if you’re dissatisfied and you are unable to change how you feel through adjusting your expectations, and they cannot commit to change long term, then it’s time to leave and find someone who will meet your needs. It’s unfair to drag someone through the pain and arguing surrounding those feelings of resentment that will inevitably follow; both to them, and to you.
The right choice will be very personal. Nobody can make that choice but you. It sucks, in the moment, but long term, you’ll both be better off.
I was happy to make it work with Jen, she was unable to accept me for who I was. I went through that with her. It ended things. I’m better off and I hope she is too.
All the best Jen. I don’t know if you’ll ever read this, but I hope you’re happy and healthy. You’ll always hold a special place in my heart and I will always care for you deeply. I wish we could have stayed friends, but you determined that was not what was best for you. I hope it helped.
Wow, I did not expect such an extensive vent. I feel really grateful to read that chapter of your life though. Coincidentally this is very relatable for me, as my current partner is also religious. I’ve often asked before whether she’s okay with me not believing in god and she’s always been chill about it. It feels nice that we haven’t found any major differences between us (ofcourse that can still happen at any time).
As for the dissatisfaction part, I’m not sure why it’s happened in the past. Maybe the thrill of a new partner sounds exciting in the moment. I’m definitely not dissatisfied with anything in my current relationship though, except maybe the lack of seeing each other since we’ve been very busy this period in time.
Relationships are hard nonetheless. I’ve opened up to her about having thoughts about it once, and she told me she’s never experienced something like that. I’m in my early 20’s, so I’m just hoping this is something that fades over time. The last thing I want in life is to hurt her.
Im really glad to hear that your relationship currently is doing good, and 7 years does seem like quite a while. Wishing you the best man.
just to be 101% certain, do you have first-hand experience with this? because I’d like other movies in my library that weren’t on no list to remain where they are…
I’m really sorry for reiterating this, but what you wrote also implies that movies that weren’t on any list will also be deleted (don’t want that), along with the movies that were on a list and now aren’t (do want that). do you have first-hand experience with this?
That’s how it works. I don’t think many people use the option.
If it helps, you could choose the keep and unmonitor option, and then once you’ve confirmed that it does indeed impact movies not on your lists (by unmonitoring them), you can disable the cleaning option (or choose a better option for you) and update all your movies back to Monitored.
This is the kind of thing that is currently an object of mockery, becomes “kinky” and “bold” in 25 years, and ultimately has two or three slang entries in urbandictionary in 50.
Some cops might help others as a hobby when they’re not busy, but that’s not what they’re paid for. Cops are paid primarily to enforce bourgeois property rights and maintain the government, which in much of the English speaking world is a monarchy and/or a colony. Cops are soldiers in a war against the people.
Generalizations never help… There may be bad police men. In some countries more, in others less. But there are definitely many nice police men who help keeping our societies safe. There are also countries, where police is known as “your friend and helper”
You think anarchy is better?
This is just some extremist facism bullshit and stupid.
If “good cops” actually existed and did their jobs, they would arrest the perpetrators of corruption and there wouldn’t be any “bad cops”. Given that bad cops are still quite prevalent we can deduce that good cops are a myth or are so few in number as to be irrelevant.
lemmy.ml
Active