The public transport system in my hometown of Melbourne has a two-tiered fine system if you're caught travelling without a ticket. ~$75 if you pay on the spot (but you forfeit the right to contest in court) or $250 if you don't. They were actually losing a few court cases, so brought in the two-tiered system.
I call it the 'fuck the poor' system, because poor people generally don't have the ability to pay $75 on demand. Paying $75 is a lot more convenient than having to find time and the know-how to contest things in court. For comparison, a day's travel costs ~$7.50.
I'd heartily welcome an income-scaled penalty system, even though I am not poor myself. A fine that is crushing to poor people is a mere momentary inconvenience for wealthy people, which isn't the point of being penalised.
Frankly, that's a pissweak argument against significantly harsher penalties for poor people vs wealthy people. The transgression committed is the same, so the punitive impact should be the same. Instead we get a much reduced penalty for wealthy folks (both relative and absolute) - and the difference has zero to do with the nature of the transgression.
This particular penalty is 25% of the full amount if you happen to be decently monied at the point of being fined - it's almost explicitly a 'poor tax'. Almost.
I could be considered rich in the global scale and I hardly ever carry $75 in cash. And in contrast, are the poor physically unable to carry $75 with them in Australia?
I call it the 'fuck the poor' system, because poor people generally don't have the ability to pay $75 on demand. Paying $75 is a lot more convenient than having to find time and the know-how to contest things in court. For comparison, a day's travel costs ~$7.50.
I'd heartily welcome an income-scaled penalty system, even though I am not poor myself. A fine that is crushing to poor people is a mere momentary inconvenience for wealthy people, which isn't the point of being penalised.