Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–125 of 125 posts

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#121

Post by radu_floricica »

jemfinch wrote: post #100
yardie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the infraction. Overrun a meter? just pay the difference. Double parking on a one-lane or major artery? Hang them by the big toe.

You don't seem to understand that as long as enforcement isn't 100%, the cost of punishment must exceed the cost of compliance if it's going to deter violation. If the only cost of overrunning a meter were paying the amount of the overrun, any economically rational actor would simply never pay meters . If he doesn't get caught, he's parked for free; if he does get caught, he pays only what he otherwise would have. Th…

The "economically rational actor" thing has been debunked long ago (see Kahneman and Tversky). There are much better ways to get people to behave the way you want then appealing to their statistical skills.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#122

Post by nitrogen »

barrkel wrote: post #120
nitrogen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems (in the US) to violate one's constitutional right to a trial. That is, exercising one's right to a trial should not increase the potential punishment, as doing so is a deterrent against exercising that fundamental right.

I don't see how your second sentence follows from your first. I don't see how appealing a charge may not result, after findings of fact, in conviction of charges more serious than those initially charged.

First, AIUI the government doesn't get to appeal in criminal cases. If a trial goes against them, that's the end of it.

Second, the right to a trial is enumerated in the US constitution. Anything that discourages people from exercising that right, such as a fine that increases as a result of choosing to have a fair trial rather than just paying after being accused, is an affront to that right.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#123

Post by eli »

radu_floricica wrote: post #121
jemfinch wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to understand that as long as enforcement isn't 100%, the cost of punishment must exceed the cost of compliance if it's going to deter violation. If the only cost of overrunning a meter were paying the amount of the overrun, any economically rational actor would simply never pay meters . If he doesn't get caught, he's parked for free; if he does get caught, he pays only what he otherwise would have. Th…

The "economically rational actor" thing has been debunked long ago (see Kahneman and Tversky). There are much better ways to get people to behave the way you want then appealing to their statistical skills.

I assure you that if it's cheaper to pay parking tickets than to feed meters, people will stop feeding meters.

Hey look, it actually happened in Mumbai: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/03/26/how-to-cheat-the-mumb...

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#124

Post by Meai »

sp332 wrote: post #119
lurker17 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Well what's the bad thing about doing a crime? The damage done. So, the punishment should be in proportion to the damage. You don't punish someone for being "bad" inside, and the point of the punishment isn't to cause some emotional effect.

No, that is exactly what punishment is for. Punishment is made to influence us humans, because we are the ones who do bad stuff. It is a fundamental principle of the universe that nothing changes unless pressure is applied, so we try to apply larger punishment than the damage done, hoping that it will prevent further wrongdoings from the same person.

Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100

#125

Post by christiangenco »

Natsu wrote: post #75
christiangenco wrote: post #59

Let's figure out what the fine should be with math! :D (10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01 = $2467.56

You're not properly representing the large fraction of people who think the fine should be zero. It's kind of confusing unless you read it carefully, but 49% of people do not support fines at all. That pie chart you're copying only represents the other 51% of the population. I mention that not to quibble with your formula, but because people seem to be seeing that chart and missing that part of the explanation.

In that case, it would be:

  0.51 * ((10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01) 
  = $1,258.46
Post reply on HN