Wednesday, January 30 2013, 4:06AM
“I believe these fines are means tested. Defendants are asked for details of incomings and outgoings and the magistrate users his/her judgment to decide on the fine. Without knowing the details of the income of those involved it would be very difficult to pass judgement on the fairness of the fines imposed. As this is private information it its unlikely to be published in the court reports of a newspaper.”
Wednesday, January 30 2013, 9:58AM
“It is the crime they committed not what they have, lets have a level playing field for once.”
Wednesday, January 30 2013, 10:38AM
“Not to base it on what they have seems unfair to me. Those with higher income would be less penalised than those on lower incomes. A standard percentage should be used and made clear stop we all know the punishment before the crime.I seem to remember this being debated on here at length sometime last year. Do we really need to go through it all again, *yawn.”
Wednesday, January 30 2013, 11:02AM
“Oh_come_on One easy answer to this, yawn, could be do not commit the crime in the first place, rich or poor. Commit the crime do the time springs to mind.”
Wednesday, January 30 2013, 11:52AM
“disident3 - I agree, commit the crime do the time, but as your opening comment reffered to the fairness of the current fine system I presumed this was what you wanted to discuss? As I said I believe that the current practice is fair but think it should be more transparent as to what level of fine you would receive, publishing a scale would be a start.”
Wednesday, January 30 2013, 2:12PM
“Why not a simple one size fits all approach.How about for every "x" grams in possesion "y" number of days in the nick ?Cold not be fairer.”
Thursday, January 31 2013, 10:56AM
“anobserver - I think you're thinking of drug possession not drink driving?disident3 - means tested fines ARE a level playing field. If you are a millionaire a £200 fine is nothing. If you are poorly paid (or not paid anything, as seems to be 'quite the thing' at the moment) it's a lot.”
Thursday, January 31 2013, 1:36PM
“Then try not to drink and drive. Easy.”
Thursday, January 31 2013, 2:54PM
“I don't drive at all, neither does any of my immediate family, a conscious decision, we prefer walking or cycling, and if too far then public transport (although the prices are becoming ridiculous)..I suppose I can't comprehend the 'other side' I can only agree with the 'if you cant do the time/fine don't do the crime'..also on the subject of 'amounts'..justice is supposed to teach a lesson, no point fining someone something insignificant to their purse..a drop in the ocean of what they live on..it must make an impact.”
Sunday, February 03 2013, 6:28PM
“there are loads of factors why he could have been fined more,
different circumstances. Both crimes were different people maybe of different sizes, in different vehicles at different times of day who drew attention to themselves in different ways, one may have mounted a kerb or collided or gone through a stop light, whilst the other may simply have been over cautious.
accumulation of offences - being bound over, failure to volunteer a sample, blood composition analysis (one may have been on medication which would increase the alcohol level). Previous convictions. Bad behaviour toward the arresting officer or in a custody area.
the only fact that is evident is that you as a mere interested party were not fully appraised of all of the details of either case, only the blood alcohol measurement and the outcome.”
Sunday, February 03 2013, 7:23PM
“The case boils down to drink driving. In neither case was anything else mentioned. There should be a level playing field to start from. Plain drink driving should rate the same punishment, no feeling sorry for the offender. That is my opinion.”
Sunday, February 03 2013, 11:37PM
“dissident.You are right there should be a level playing field.. assuming both sets of circumstances were identical and both sets of offenders had identical charge sheets, and both sets of offenders were identical and both sets of offenders had identical previous convictions.However - as it doesn't mention anything of either offenders previous convictions.There may be a circumstance where a driver taking medication has insisted on a toxicology report which takes this into account, and has been given a caution on a previous occasion,where the other offender may be a first time offender who is still a bit over from the night before, and got pulled over because they've backed into a lamp post or something.As we don't know anything other than the principle offence - we can't truly appreciate why the two sentences were different.”
Something about your area you want to voice and debate with others? Let your community know and see how they feel.
Join the debate
Copyright © 2013 Local World. All Rights Reserved.