Emphasising a difference; in order to materially imply a falsity, and persuade the respondent that because a fine is a different word from civil penalty, then the two words; that relate to the same matter, are in different classes, when they are merely different type members of the SAME class concept of conferring subtractions!
It has the same flavour as;
“What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.,” (R&J)
where a fine by any other name would smell deceit!
Things that are subtractions = A = death penalty, B = bodily harm, C = forfeit, D = FINE that includes criminal consequence, E = CIVIL penalty that’s not criminal, F = Fines and Civil penalties that include criminal consequence, and G = defamation and so on until no value is conferred.
The dividing point, no value conferred, has on the other side,
Things that are additions =1 = smile of approval, 2 = smile and handshake with kiss, 3 = bottle of perfume, 4 = a credit in e newspaper, 5 = a large gift, say £50,000 , 6 = a large gift, say £50,000 AND an undisclosed lottery gift, say £??,000 and then, 7 = A lottery gift, 8 = 4 litre car, 9 = an undisclosed lottery gift.
It should be clear that each side has class members of different types in varying degrees of gravity.
It’s not possible for a civil penalty to belong to a benefit or a lottery win to a detriment. To emphasise a civil penalty as if it were so much better as to belong to a benefit is false emphasis, when the similarities are overwhelming an d difference a matter of degree. Where a fine and a civil penalty are the same value and only the consequence different and either will be paid anyway, the emphasis of difference is a deceit.
In the determination whether a type member belongs to a class, the principle is the same as scientific method, namely necessary and sufficient conations. The best example of a simple cause is: IF there is a simple cause of life; then the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life. Substitute water for oxygen and derive the same result, making the two causes both necessary and sufficient. Substitute Vitamin D, and discover its absence is not sufficient for the absence of life, only the absence of a quality or condition such as rickets. There one has a cause of rickets and so on.
In class immediate inferences, the same negative yield; sufficiency in the absence, is the important factor.
A type member belongs to a class when it meets the requirements of the defining characteristics of that class.
A class can be viewed as all those entities having a certain property of satisfying a certain pro positional function. This function defines or determines the class.. Members of the class are those significant values of the defining function that give rise to true propositions when substituted for the variable. For example, when values are assigned to the class ‘x is a detriment’ the result is in some cases a true or a false proposition. Those significant values NOT yielding false propositions constitute the members of that class. (The sufficient condition!).
If x is a gift of £500, it does not yield a true proposition for the class of detriments, it does however yield a true proposition for the class of awards. Simplify this further to make detriments = subtractions, and benefits = additions. Now when you have a council or government behaving ludicrously, they will attempt to describe a civil penalty as an award; and I will show just such a council letter doing precisely that, in
“You were awarded this Penalty Charge Notice because”.
What you have here is an attempt to place - (E) - above in the class of detriments, into the class of benefits. Either they are trying to make the distress appear less than it is, or simply, and more likely, having a laugh at one’s expense which is a disgrace, undermining the foundations of correspondence theory and truth itself..
Then you have a middle extreme when for example Justice Collins says “These are not fines, they are civil penalties”, where both fines and civil penalties clearly belong to the class of conferring subtractions, BUT the distinction with false emphasis attempts to materially imply that civil penalties, which are not custodial are of some benefit as to suggest they are awards in a more subtle sense. First this emphasises the distinction fails to show the overwhelming similarities of a Fine for £100, and a Civil Penalty for £100 being nil, if either is paid, and equally where a civil penalty comes with such provocation that one might become insulting in court, then one can get a custodial for another reason.
The important difference between a Fine and Civil penalty is merely that of degree in gravity, and there is very little difference in degree at this level.
Pointing to a distinction or difference between types or members of the same class concept is analogous to using synonyms or shades of meaning to lead one away from the heart of the issue. It’s like telling a child he has just received a little graze, when his knee cap is hanging off. Such false emphasis is totally unacceptable to an injured party, but it is he medicine that authority delivers to itself when describing its own faults.. First rarely if ever admitted; a serious fault in ‘culpa lata’, and second always choosing those soft terms that shades away from true correspondence with reality, persuading and misleading.
To tease this out further, one has to also look at the history of usage of the terms fines, civil penalties, and forfeits and distraints.