Beezeral
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2010
- 9,923
- 4,904
The state pays them and the state benefits from the fines. From a financial point of view, it is preferable to pull over someone like Barkov traveling 10km over the limit then his childhood friend driving 30km over the speed limit. The conflict of interest is obvious. If there is any sort of quota system, conflict. If there is a target revenue for the month, conflict.State pays the cops in Finland. They get nothing from the fines.
Even if we assume that everything is on the up and up and there is absolutely no real incentive to pull over expensive cars the system still creates a subconscious incentive to target expensive cars. Good employees want to do what is best for their employer. Pulling over that expensive car means 40k for the state. So if two cars are going the exact same speed and the cop can only pull over one, which one do you think he's going to choose?
this is false. The entire purpose of the system is that two people don't suffer equal consequences. Barkov paying a 40k+ fine is not equal to the fine I would receive if I was speeding in Finland.And the result is that two people committing the same crime suffer equal consequences.
I understand the purpose of the system is to make a punishment strong enough to actually prevent the behavior, but it still has negative consequences. just different ones.