Why poor people should be fined less for the same crimes

Stated so baldly, the statement practically BEGS condemnation, doesn’t it? It almost goes without saying – that all people are equal before the law. Charging different people different amounts for the same offence seems a gross violation of this fundamental principle. But it’s not.

Part of the reason society fines people is the “deterrent factor.” It’s a way of saying “we, as a society, do not want people doing this, and so we will discourage that sort of behaviour by attaching a negative repercussion to it.” The negative repercussion should be the same, regardless of whether the person is black, white, poor, rich, or (gasp) a dirty libertarian.

The problem with this approach is measuring the impact of a negative repercussion on different people, in different circumstances. When two different people commit a crime, they should be punished equally negatively, despite their different social situations.

To someone who earns $30,000 a year, a $1,000 fine is certainly more economically damaging than such a fine would be to a person who earns $100,000 in a year. Therefore, the person on the higher income is being punished less severely than the person on the lower income – over three times less severely, if yearly income is the only variable we take into account. This is not equitable. These two people, by being given the exact same punishment, are being treated unequally by the law.

I’m not saying the poor person’s fines should be reduced – by breaking the law, they should certainly be made to feel the consequences of their actions. It would be more fair if the richer person’s fines were increased, to make them too feel the economic pain that disobeying the law brings.

I have come across several arguments against legislation seeking to artificially reduce the difference in punishments. For example, Kerre Woodham, that bastion of good sense, denies that a fine would affect different income earners to different degrees.

In a recent NZ Herald articles, she says: “Sure, if the benefit was your sole income, it might be tough to pay it off but there are ways and means of supplementing a benefit, not all of them legal. And unless you're one of the few billionaires in this country, $200 is a big deal to most of us.”

Is she encouraging people to break the law to pay their fines? Oh that Kerre, what a laugh.

Her other point is one I’ve run across a couple of times – if you can’t afford the fine, or if it’s too expensive, just work more. Work harder. Up-skill. Get a different job. Wonderful solutions, only they too involve doing something a rich person receiving the same fine would not have to do. How can you say everyone is “equal before the law” when some people are forced to find alternative methods of getting money, while others aren’t? An unbearable fine for a poor person might be a small pinch, economically, for a richer person. This isn’t equitable.

It is grating, let me tell you, to use the economic handles “rich” and “poor.” They are misinforming. In this country (perhaps not as readily as in others) it is almost more accurate to say “white” and “other” when referring to economic status. If you disbelieve me, look towards South Auckland.

I was raised to believe in egalitarianism, and that social balance and harmony could not exist without a modicum of equality in the treatment of diverse peoples. I have seen nothing in my lifetime that would disprove this moral hypothesis, but many events have continued to prove it true. The current fining system employed by the New Zealand law system doesn’t achieve this egalitarian objective.