In many cases it’s both.
Most western legal systems work in this way: there are two separate domains of law: criminal law and civil law. Explained in a very simplified way:
Criminal law is about people having done wrong things to society as a whole. Prosecuting crimes is the job of the state (prosecutor) and not (usually) of the victim. People who do things that are defined as crimes may be imprisoned, or they may be fined (forced to pay money to the state). There are also crimes that do not directly have victims, but you can still be fined or imprisoned for committing them. Most offenses against traffic law are like that, e.g. who is the victim of someone driving too fast…?
Civil law is about how people treat each other. More specifically, tort law is about people doing wrong things to each other. If a person has harmed another person (even if it wasn’t a criminal offense, which may have higher standards of proof or intention), the victim can sue the offender in a civil court in order to collect damages. But that requires the victim taking action; neither you nor the state can usually take civil action against someone who didn’t harm you, only someone else.
In some legal systems it’s possible that those things can be combined to some extent, for example someone convicted of a crime may also be ordered to pay damages to the victim at the same time. In others they are completely separate.
Because someone has to pay the people who give out the fines, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to give out the fines, because they’d be working elsewhere. It’s the delicate balance of nature.
About 20 years ago someone broke my car window and stole two backpacks. Few months later we got a check from a victim fund to cover the loss.
Now that is what I am talking about.
Fine is a general deterrent, restitution is separate.
Think fine for running a stop sign - that’s a deterrent for running the stop sign.
What if I am Musk rich? How is any of it a deterrent?
In some countries, the fine is not defined as a definite amount, but as a percentage of yearly income. In Finland, a mild speeding ticket is half your daily income. That means for Musk, if he was caught speeding there, would have to pay ~38,000,000 EUR as a mild slap on the wrist.
It should ratchet up as well. Second infraction is half your weekly, third is half your monthly, fourth annually.
Not that I think fines work as deterrents, but if they’re going to work, they should work for the rich as well.Even without the ratcheting, assuming the percentages are well calibrated, it works on everyone equally no matter your financial situation. A wealthy person paying tens or hundreds of thousands of euros for going 5km/h over the speed limit learns the lesson very quickly.
The key word, my friends, is “income”. Wealth ≠ Income
So in reality, Elon would probably not pay that much. He would most likely pay nothing.
Often after a fine, there can be a civil suit where the victims can get direct restitution.
Ah yes I’m sure that is free as well, including the multiple days you’d have to take off work to go wait in lines and repeat the same things over and over and then maybe get a payout.
Very often, yes.
The lawers would take a cut of the settlement instead of upfront payment. Not sure about taking off work to wait in line. If there is some kind of line to wait in, that would be the lawers job.And in court?
What court? Who goes to court? Nearly everyone settles outside of court.
Because that’s a profit motive, and for better or worse, you often need to have money to hire a lawyer and file a civil suit to get money as a victim which is a deterrent to filing frivolous suits.
If the State prosecuted crimes for you to get financial compensation I can assume you can see how problematic that might become.
From the one law class I took in college, civil courts are for one person to get reputations from another. Criminal courts are for society to get respirations from a person. A criminal fine is about paying back society because your lack of following the law is making people around you feel unsafe.
The victim of your crime can sue you independently and get additional money from you. I believe they can even use the evidence from the criminal trial and a civil trial is much easier to win.
It does cost money to find and prosecute the offenders. Plus many crimes don’t have a specific victim, but pose risks or harms towards society in general.
Many states have many laws that include paying for damages. You might want to research more.
I know that but if the prosecutor and Public Def get paid by the state or county does that mean they are double dipping? Why not just say pay this amount and it goes to the victim or victims. And if they can’t let them work it off at the local jail for 40 dollars a day which is given to the person who is wronged? Now everyone is saying the prosecution and lawyers need to get paid and everything then it would seem the defender and prosecutor, you paying more is in their best interest. So basically a public defender is actively working against you for a bigger check.
