Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im not sure I agree with a sliding scale, based on income, but SOMETHING needs to change in regards to traffic laws, it seems they are used mostly as a revenue stream (they dont actually want the crimes to decrease), theres too much of an incentive for police to write citations left and right, too much room for abuse.
The way I look at it, if people are constantly willing to break these laws over the years, then that law is ineffective, and when it comes to other laws, they act very quickly when laws are not working as they intended, or criminals find a way around them, but with traffic laws, its like they enjoy all the revenue too much even though there are still people speeding left and right, no motivation to change the laws, to make them more effective.
...and if you CAN afford it then you're entitled to do whatever is "in your budget"? That'd be cool - make a lot of money for crimes that will then fund your bigger crimes - that's damn near a career!
Total forfeiture for a $20 parking ticket? For driving 60 in a 55? For jaywalking? For throwing down a gum wrapper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab
We don’t have jaywalking laws here. That’s state specific. I think the law should even be town/city specific. One in downtown Chicago or New York has a better chance of getting a parking ticket than in the middle of no mans land. And speeding tickets should have higher penalties if it’s a more populated area. But yes, after so many tickets one needs to suffer consequences for breaking the law. For parking tickets in Chicago if fines are not paid they will “boot” your car!
I don’t agree with different fines for different income levels though. I think they should just be more strict on when your license is susp for violations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime.
If it would be up to me, a conviction of a crime would result in the total forfeiture of all assets.
Criminals should be funding the criminal justice system, not the tax-payers.
Yeah...sure...different laws everywhere but that wasn't my point. My point was about total forfeiture of asses for a conviction of any crime being ludricrous.
Well, the consensus seems to be that based on the average income of cd'ers no one wants the possibility of having to pay a higher fine and certainly we don't want poor people to get off "easier" so status quo it is. Good job everyone!
Equal in terms of IMPACT - a $500 fine is nothing to someone making $250k a year...the fine is meant to be a deterrent. It is not the same level of deterrent if income is high compared to someone making $25k a year.
We aren't talking about crimes that receive sentences - only ones that result in fines. Certainly it doesn't make sense to go beyond minor offenses settled by fines alone - and the concept isn't meant to be applied in such cases.
I understand what you're saying, but I can see this idea, if implemented only for fines, becoming a real mess years down the road after legal precedence for this concept is set.
Tell me in 5 or 10 years you can't imagine hearing a defendant or his family say, but judge, this sentence is unfair since he/she is the sole supporter of their family, if you send him/her to jail the entire family will end up in a homeless shelter. We know he/she killed someone while driving drunk, but it's just not "fair" that wealthy family would go on living in the same house, eating the same food and taking a few vacations every year even if one parent ended up in jail....but we'll be out in the street! Judge....that's not equal justice!
Tell me you can't imagine that if you set the precedent of a floating standard for amount of a fine based on income level for speeding, running a stop light, or parking by a fire hydrant, you'd not see the logical next logical step in short order. 30 or 40 years ago I might have been more willing to consider this idea...but the way things are changing at breakneck speed these days (some good, some bad) there is no way I think it would be wise (I seriously doubt it would even be constitutional) to even open this door.
Equal justice under the law means just that. If you do the crime, you pay the fine. The same as anyone else for the exact same crime.
Last edited by jasper1372; 03-17-2018 at 10:40 AM..
"For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions. Equity requires punishment that is equally felt."
Higher fines for repeated violations? Sure. Higher fines based on income? No. Regardless of a persons income speeding endangers the lives of others. A rich person speeding doesn’t endanger other drivers any more than a poor one does. And that’s what fines are for.
"For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions. Equity requires punishment that is equally felt."
So wealthier people should pay more, not because they broke the law more than the poorer person, but just because they can afford it? Idiotic. That is like saying Bill Gates should pay more for an iphone than me because he earns more. Fair is not varying the fine based on ability to pay but making the fine the same regardless of income, sex, race or any other criteria. As to rich people being able to break the law without meaningful repercussions, fairness dictates if you do the same crime multiple times you are penalized more not because of wealth but because you aren't learning. For example, if you continue to rack up parking violations even if you pay them, the fine should increase with each violation with some violations requiring losing your license to drive.
Total forfeiture for a $20 parking ticket? For driving 60 in a 55? For jaywalking? For throwing down a gum wrapper?
I was referring to felony and serious misdemeanor offenses, not traffic violations.
Traffic deaths in the US are higher than other foreign States, even when comparing deaths-per-mile driven.
Speed, drunk driving and distracted driving are the main factors. The number of road-rage deaths and incidents is appalling, and those are initiated by aggressive drivers who speed.
Given the severity of the consequences, they can pay the full fine or ride the bus.
I was referring to felony and serious misdemeanor offenses, not traffic violations.
Traffic deaths in the US are higher than other foreign States, even when comparing deaths-per-mile driven.
Speed, drunk driving and distracted driving are the main factors. The number of road-rage deaths and incidents is appalling, and those are initiated by aggressive drivers who speed.
Given the severity of the consequences, they can pay the full fine or ride the bus.
Can we stick to the topic as stated?
No one ever said this should apply to felonies or "serious misdemeanors".
Others have tried similar versions of reductio ad absurdum arguments implying what would happen if there were no fines for homeless people or billionnaires paying $100k for speeding 10 mph over the limit - this after the article specifically talks about maximums.
Apparently this can't be discussed on its merits or it's just too boring hence the exaggerations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
