Glitter

[Yahwe]

I prefer to have justice involved in every aspect of the law ...

Citizens are all equal. Punishments must therefore be equal for all. I see no reason to make punishment disproportionately larger on the grounds of any basis of discrimination - colour, gender or wealth.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd say it depends. The poorer person may be able to excuse their behaviour on circumstances - a rich person may not. I'd certainly be more forgiving to someone who robbed because they were desperate compared to someone who did out of whim, for instance.

People who rob don't tend to get fined, they tend to get sent to prison. Fines are generally for more regulatory offences, and I doubt anyone can argue that they were compelled to drive above the speed limit (to use the Scandinavian example above) by their desperate financial circumstances.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I prefer to have justice involved in every aspect of the law ...

Citizens are all equal. Punishments must therefore be equal for all. I see no reason to make punishment disproportionately larger on the grounds of any basis of discrimination - colour, gender or wealth.

that's all well and good. but where you believe punishment should be numerically equal, others believe its impact should be equal. There should always be a significant disincentive to crime, or else the whole thing is pointless.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I doubt anyone can argue that they were compelled to drive above the speed limit (to use the Scandinavian example above) by their desperate financial circumstances.

True, but I suspect TV licence payment probably is affected by one's financial circumstances.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

True, but I suspect TV licence payment probably is affected by one's financial circumstances.

Yes, it's terrible really, all those poor people being forced at gunpoint to buy televisions.

[Phalon]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Actually , thats pretty reasonable justice.

I for one, for no amount of money, would spend 1 week in a South East asian jail, let alone 3 years. Thats possibly the worst thing that any man in the wester world could imagine.

Since posting about it i have read further into the subject including the conditions of Vietnamese prisons and i'm beginning to agree it does sound like a fate worse than death.

I admit my initial reaction was one of 'shock shock horror, that's disgraceful' etc but i did lack the experience to compare the crime in its context which some of you seem to have the benefit of.

I do admit however, in my eyes, that crimes against minors make it much easier to detest the perpetrator. For me it is something truly abhorent.

I am happy to concede that this 'villification' of the criminal is unjustified when taken in context though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Yes, it's terrible really, all those poor people being forced at gunpoint to buy televisions.

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. Are you denying that someone's wealth probably affects their paying a TV licence?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. Are you denying that someone's wealth probably affects their paying a TV licence?

I think he's saying you shouldn't buy a tv unless you can also afford the license.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think he's saying you shouldn't buy a tv unless you can also afford the license.

Most TV's last a period of years if they're bought new (although I suspect most people at the very bottom end of the spectrum don't buy a new TV, they get a hand-me-down one). I'd imagine it's quite difficult to predict whether you'll be able to afford a TV for the duration of owning it (especially since you have no idea how much a TV licence will cost in x years). But then maybe you should sell / dispose of your TV once you realise that you can't afford to buy your renewal this year. But that's pretty expensive (since you'd then need to rebuy it when you did have the money - which is inefficient at best).

Either way, I'd still consider it a "worse" crime if someone with plenty of money didn't bother getting a licence compared to someone who simply couldn't afford it.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think he's saying you shouldn't buy a tv unless you can also afford the license.

Indeed. I have about as much sympathy for people who claim not to be able to afford their television licences as I do for people who buy big houses and claim not to be able to afford high rates of council tax.

And it's certainly not the same situation as your robbery scenario - "I was so hungry that I robbed someone to buy some food" is hardly comparable to "I wanted to watch Celebrity Big Brother so much that I bought a television without a licence".

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Most TV's last a period of years if they're bought new (although I suspect most people at the very bottom end of the spectrum don't buy a new TV, they get a hand-me-down one). I'd imagine it's quite difficult to predict whether you'll be able to afford a TV for the duration of owning it (especially since you have no idea how much a TV licence will cost in x years). But then maybe you should sell / dispose of your TV once you realise that you can't afford to buy your renewal this year. But that's pretty expensive (since you'd then need to rebuy it when you did have the money - which is inefficient at best).

Or you could unplug it.

[1-X]

This thread has unintentionally reminded me just how much of an obscenity the tv licence has become, when one year is three times the cost of a cheap tv*.

Does anyone know if any political parties plan to scrap it?


*A TV licence is £126.50 a year. You can get a new tv (14in alba stereo tv from argos) for £45.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by 1-X

This thread has unintentionally reminded me just how much of an obscenity the tv licence has become, when one year is three times the cost of a cheap tv*.

It's hardly unique in this sense, though: a cheap car can be bought for hardly anything, yet the actual cost of being able to drive it, having paid for insurance and road tax, not to mention the ongoing cost of petrol, will be many times more than the initial purchase price.

And it's only natural that the cost of televisions will decrease steadily as technology advances and becomes cheaper to produce, but you can't expect a corresponding decrease in the cost of producing television programmes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Proteus

And it's certainly not the same situation as your robbery scenario - "I was so hungry that I robbed someone to buy some food" is hardly comparable to "I wanted to watch Celebrity Big Brother so much that I bought a television without a licence".

I'm not sure I was saying it was. Poverty is not a defence in this matter of course, however it might be used as some sort of mitigating factor.

To return to my original example, if four people were all guilty of not having a TV licence then I'd say that the poorest person probably had the most excuse of the four, even if there's still wasn't a particularly good one.