At what point does it become excessive?

[Hana Song]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?
If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?
If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

1.The first one is justified because he is risking other peoples lives instead of his own. Fuck that guy because he had a ton of chances to change but through them away.

2.Do you mean someone assaulting another person? I don't understand...

3.Putting some in prison for debt sounds silly, you can't pay it back in prison.

When it stop making sense like sending someone to prison/jail for not paying a debt... How the fuck will they pay it back?

[PaladinBash]

1) Yes, absolutely. I would also accept putting them in community service until it is paid off (at a rate of minimum wage). That's a lot of weekends wasted on a shovel before even a modest fine is paid off.
2) Again, definitely. Also think they should have to pay an equal amount of the fine to the person they assaulted. If they can't pay it, more community service until it is paid off at a minimal rate.
3) Both. It should be taken directly from their bank accounts, their paid income, their tax return, even going so far as to put any large assets they have (house, car, business etc) under the hammer to raise the money. If all such are sold and are inadequate, forced labour until it is repaid should be mandatory.

I also believe the last should cover the others. You shouldn't have a choice in paying fines. The state should automatically take them out of your bank account after a month of issue and proceed from there. You should be very afraid of fines. They should be damaging if not crippling. Not paying your debts should be ruinous.

[Deleted]

When it stop making sense like sending someone to prison/jail for not paying a debt... How the fuck will they pay it back?

One part of putting people in prison is to prevent them from doing further damage and to discourage from further pursuing their wrongdoing by limiting their freedom.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Allow me to turn this around.

At what point does tolerating seemingly minor crimes become excessive?

Take 100 people who speed and dart in and out of traffic.

Sure 99 of them might cause no more harm than pissing off fellow motorists but then what about that 1 guy who causes a fatal crash?

I say if you're going to have laws you should have strict and harsh punishment for breaking them otherwise whats the point?

[Powerogue]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?
If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?
If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

1) I've always thought our prison sentences are way too high for petty offenses in the US. In this case I guess prison is justified, but I'd wish it was very short and not on their "permanent record" of sorts, crippling their ability to get jobs and be a part of society for life.

2) That's grammatically off. Did you mean "...who slapped someone in the face?" And again I'd put this as a very minor offense.

3) I have no idea how they should handle that, except that it's nonsensical how someone crippled with debt simultaneously has no way to pay it back due to said poverty. They don't really have a way out of that cycle. The answer to this is likely very complicated and I have yet to find it.

If all such are sold and are inadequate, forced labour until it is repaid should be mandatory.

Though I'd rather keep looking for an option that doesn't involve slavery.

Generally, as elaborated above, I think we should have a tier of punishments where someone might get a comparatively very short prison sentence (a year to as low as a few days) that doesn't get put on any sort of record that's held against them for the rest of their lives. Just "you're free to go, don't go drunkenly peeing in public again, you rascal."

[Lora]

1. define speeding. going 45 in a 40 zone? going 60 in 55? thats fucking vague.
2. that makes no sense the way it is worded. someone got slapped in the face and has to pay fines AND go to prison? surely you meant they slapped someone and should pay fines AND prison. either way is fucking stupid as shit and should not have to deal with fines or prison as long as it didnt escalate into a serious injury.
3. putting someone into prison because they can't pay their debt is fucking asinine because they won't be able to pay shit while in prison because they wont be making any fucking money. taking what they have in their bank account is also stupid as shit because it might be their only source of money for food/gas etc which are essential in being able to survive in order to make the money to pay their debt.

basically, fuck society and the entire concept of debt.

[Auxora]

Overall I think the justice system isn't terrible. But there is 1 huge problem area, and that's in these intermediate level crimes that you're kind of referring to. The grey area between minor infractions like speeding 5 or 10 mph over the limit, and more serious crimes like an armed robbery. So things like say going 50 mph over the limit, or shoplifting a $800 laptop, or being caught with a 1/4 lb of weed. Generally for the minor infractions and super-serious crimes the penalties are a little more cut and dry, a small fine or a long prison sentence. But there are a few problems with the crimes in the intermediate area:

1. The laws and penalties vary too much state to state. It's often even difficult just to know the laws and penalties in your particular state.
2. Judges often have wide ranges given to them in the law for penalties to give. So that leaves a whole lot of subjectivity to them, and sometimes that leads to abuse. Often in courts you'll hear people hoping for a particular judge who's more lenient, or people wondering what mood a judge is in. Plus their personal biases towards things like appearance, or maybe tattoos, or even skin color can all affect a sentence.
3. Money and being able to afford a better lawyer statistically gives defendants a far higher chance at either getting the case dismissed or a much lesser penalty than a poorer person who has to use a public defendant.

Put it all together and you can have things like 2 people committing the same exact crime 10 miles apart, and 1 will get no jail time and another might get 10 years in prison, depending what side of a state line they are on. Likewise, 2 people committing the same crime even in the same city might get different penalties just depending which judge they get or their mood. The legislatures give the judges a wide window to assess the crime and give a fair penalty, but in those intermediate range crimes that leaves the punishment up to a lot of subjectivity with the judge and that leads to a lot of unfairness.

As far as debt, I don't think that applies very much since the only way you generally go to jail for debt is if it's debt to the government. And again, when it comes to things like back taxes or overdue fines, depending which part of the country in (and sadly skin color) it can vary a lot on that. There's a local guy that's owed a fine of over $100k to the city for over 5 years and there's been no discussion of him doing jail time. Yet I've seen stories of minorities in the south with questionable judges having them spend months in jail for a $500 fine.

[Lord Havik]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?

Nope. Refusal to pay a traffic fine is contempt of court and may be met with anywhere from a warning to prison time depending on the circumstances.

If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?

Smacking someone in the face can be considered assault depending on the circumstances. The slapper should be thankful they got fines in the first place, and not a mandatory prison term.

If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

Yes. If there was no punishment for not paying back a legally binding loan; no one would pay them back. Financial agreements must be enforced for a fiat currency economy to properly function.

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

When physical torture, lengthy prison terms, and capital punishment are used for non-violent criminal offenses, @ first-offense, w/ damages valued at less than 30,000$.

[Breccia]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?

No.

If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?

If they refuse to pay? Yes.

If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

Murkier. There is such a thing as a predatory loan. But they'd just declare bankruptcy. Jail would not be an issue.

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

Society runs on a pair of main features:
1) Mankind helping their fellow man
2) Rules to keep people living in relative peace and harmony.

Failure to follow rules, such as speeding over and over, does not merit the same punishment that was clearly a non-deterrant. If they feel the speed limit should be raised/removed in the area they keep speeding in, they should attempt to get the law changed. Until then, doing 40MPH in a school zone, or whatever, is dangerous and could get people hurt or killed.

People who obey the rules out of fear of punishment might be Lawful Evil, but they still drive the speed limit on your street.

People who disregard the rules, because they do not fear punishment, will run over a child eventually.

If I have to choose which as neighbors, I'll choose the former.

[Kasierith]

The idea of laws is to prevent people from doing things, not to put a price tag on doing things. If they are unwilling to accept the offer of a lighter end of the stick, there is nothing wrong with prosecuting to the full extent of the law given the infraction.

[Charge me Doctor]

Prison for speeding? Shouldn't the person be just banned from driving?

[tobzhax]

The idea of laws is to prevent people from doing things, not to put a price tag on doing things. If they are unwilling to accept the offer of a lighter end of the stick, there is nothing wrong with prosecuting to the full extent of the law given the infraction.

Well I mean, the generally accepted (based on teaching in law courses) purpose of law is multifaceted:

deterrence (as stated)

incapacitation

rehabilitation

retribution (yes, in all western courts this is still a viable ground for court)

restitution

So as I'm sure many people in this thread will point out in different and likely argumentative ways: a traffic law needs to prevent a speeder from speeding in the first place, next it must remove his ability to speed again or attempt to in some way, then it should focus on helping the offender re-attune to societal norm, it is expected to contain a reasonable 'dentem pro dente' factor (the only reason, by the way, capital punishment is still morally viable as a law) and lastly it needs to provide some form of restitution for any victims involved, including society as a whole - in the speeding case, if he speeds he should be punished so I am rewarded for not speeding and arriving later though I may have wanted to speed as well.

[Itisamuh]

People should get whatever penalty fits the crime, and if they refuse to meet those penalties, they deserve to be imprisoned or executed.

[Mehrunes]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?

The state can forcibly execute financial punishments. One's refusal to pay is inconsequential. They will just take part of your salary or go after your bank accounts. In case of refusal of payment you may be found in contempt of the court though and may be fined even more, so it's not really worth it.

If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?

If they have to pay fines for that, they are already punished. And while you can combine fines with other punishments, it would be excessive for only a slap. Now, if you meant inability to pay or refusal to pay like in other examples, then in the case of the latter, see above. In case of the former, fines should be set reasonably and proportionally to the sentenced person's finances, so that the person can actually pay them and so that they are proportional. If the fine is too high in a particular case, it should be lowered by higher court. If the person doesn't have the means to pay at all, alternative punishment should be used. For a slap community service is enough.

If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

This isn't even a criminal law issue, this is civil law. Prison has nothing to do with this situation. If your debt is with the bank that you have an account with, then then can meddle with your account if your contract allows so. For other creditors, welp, you're out of luck. The debtor can restructure their debt or declare bankruptcy and the creditors may be partially paid off through that.

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

In all cases it's basically an issue of debtor's prison which is injustice, mockery of the law and doesn't solve anything in terms of the debtor's ability to actually pay.

[melodramocracy]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?
If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?
If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

For the first one at least, yes, that's hilariously excessive, and not how it should be handled anyhow. "Speeding" is terribly arbitrary.

Certain types of debts can lead to jail time, an act which can really have no long term benefit whatsoever. For example:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...cle-of-poverty

[Toosdey]

Since you don't know the difference...
Rule of thumb, jail equals sentence up to, but no more than, 1 year.
Prison equals sentence exceeding one year.

1) Not paying a court ordered fine on a speeding ticket is a violation of the law, on top of the speeding ticket itself, so nothing wrong with jail time.
2) I'm assuming it has to be one hell of a slap if they are legally fined for it, so yes, jail is fine.
3) No, because it is incredibly counter productive.

[Deleted]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?
If you have someone who slapped in the face and have to pay fines for that, is it warranted to put them in prison?
If you have someone in debt who can't pay back, is it warranted to just take money from their bank accounts if they have that or put them in prison?

When does the penalty become excessive in relation to what a person did?

1) Revoke driving license, shock imprisonment maybe, few days to a week at most. Id rather wait till they get caught driving/speeding without a license first for prison though.

2) Well if people can't keep their hands to themselves and have to get physical, I think its ok to put them in prison straight away, why bother with fines?

3) Yes and no. But then again I think personal bank accounts should be completely untouchable by anyone but the person it belongs to. As for prison if they refuse or cant pay their depts? Well the way I see it, it really depends. If they dont care, and refuse to pay or completely ignore the debt for an extended period of time, it should just qualify as theft, they should serve the sentence and be cleared of it. Otherwise, it would be best for anyone to just give them more time I guess, maybe punished with a fine or lowered credit rating only.

[Spectral]

If you have someone who is speeding and he refuses to pay, is it excessive to put him in prison if he won't pay the fines?

There is no plausible alternative to this at some point. If law isn't backed by force, law is meaningless.

[Toosdey]

For the first one at least, yes, that's hilariously excessive, and not how it should be handled anyhow. "Speeding" is terribly arbitrary.

How is that arbitrary? The state determines what the safe driving speed is given the type of road and area it is in under good driving conditions, and if you go over, you are speeding. I don't understand how it is arbitrary.