I don't think so. A lot of fines aren't for doing things which are bad, but for doing things which are more likely to lead to something else happening which is bad. e.g. driving 80 mph down the highway isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but in certain situations the government has decided that it crosses the threshold of a higher likelihood of something bad happening (losing control of a vehicle and the more serious crash that would result due to the higher speed). But in some instances, like on I10 in west Texas, driving 80 mph is legal. There is no harm to society by merely driving 80 mph (malum prohibitum vs. malum in se). The fine is to just to dissuade people from doing the action in the first place, or to punish them and remind them not to do it in the future.ScottDLS wrote: The idea behind a fine is to represent the harm done to society by the offense.
But honestly, I think the real reason in California isn't to make fines more fair, but to raise more money overall. They'll probably do something like raise the rate 10x on really high earners, raise it 1.5x on the average person, and cut it to .5x of the current rate for the poor.
If that were the case, then the graduated income tax would have been found unconstitutional a long time ago.Beiruty wrote:unconstitutional. Equality clause.