Equal Justice?
Here is the problem. Sam and John are stopped for knowingly breaking the speed limit on a highway. They get traffic tickets. Sam is fined four hours of his earnings. John is fined only forty minutes of his earnings. They committed the same offense, yet Sam has to pay six times as much in his earnings as John. Why?
This unequal response to the same offense may sound trivial at first. But it isn’t. The offense is committed by the individual who made an individual decision to break the law. Punishment should be inflicted on the individual’s worth represented by his capacity to earn, and his capacity to enjoy that earning. So the right response would be to fine Sam his four hours’ earning ($60) and fine John his four hours’ earning ($360). Why not?
If the intent of the speeding violation law is to punish the violator, surely John is not impressed. He can easily pay $60 without blinking, and probably speed again. Sam may have to cut on his grocery budget for a few weeks to avoid going into debt, and he will perhaps not speed again. Why this unequal treatment?
If the intent of the speeding violation law is for the police department to raise revenue, why not charge John and Sam the same hours of their earnings, and collect more money from John?
But let’s focus on the basic injustice in this situation. Trivial, you say? Let’s say both Sam and John are arrested for not paying a fine or not appearing in the court. Sam gathers his savings to pay bail, and has to forego his short once a year vacation. John has to just forego a couple of golf games. It gets worse. They need lawyers. Sam gets an overworked public defender. John hires a team of two expensive lawyers to get him out. Sounds fair, does it?
I know there are far bigger issues of unequal justice in society. Let’s begin with rendering equal justice to Sam and John, and go farther from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment