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.
Amendment XIV, equal protection clause: " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And in your Amendment VIII, higher fines for richer people would certainly be "unusual punishment".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan
Somebody cite a jurisdiction in which the rich are statutorily fined more than the poor for the same offense, which has been upheld.
Long post but I have law info. Those amendments in practice have meaning, they are applied certain ways when government action is challenged, and it may not be as simple and obvious as it seems. Actually, it isn't. "Equal protection" seems obvious. Nope, there are 3 tiers of classes people challenging can be a member of. All treated different by the courts, with 3 tests, from least important classes to most important ones where government is under the most scrutiny.
Under the 14th Amendment EPC, SES/wealth status is a class among the least protected in the three-part scrutiny tier, government gets the most deference in its decisions potentially discriminating on that basis. The plaintiff in a case against the government for discrimination/an EPC claim based on SES would have to prove (yes, plaintiff has burden, not government like the higher standards of review for more suspect classes like gender and race) that the statute/different treatment is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, therefore should be overturned. It's a very government-friendly standard, hard for a plaintiff to win on.
If, say, fines worked on a percentage of income (or something) basis, the purpose of that, in this context at least, would be to make tickets or fines based on what someone can fairly afford so people who cannot afford fixed dollar amount fines or tickets don't wind up in much worse situations than those who can easily afford them, simply because they are poorer. Much worse situations like eventually having their cars towed, or having tickets rack up or go unpaid for long periods because they choose to pay rent or utilities or for food before paying fixed dollar amount parking tickets or fines they owe. People would only owe more or less in actual dollars, not percentage charged, which would be the same for all just with different results depending on how well off you are/what you can afford. This fixed percentage system is what I personally have been imagining this whole time, it results in a sort of "sliding scale" in my mind because the dollar amount will differ, from higher to lower, based on SES while percent charged is the same.
Idk if there is precedent for this but it doesn't seem like a terrible argument that the government has an interest here in not over-burdening the poor and a fixed percentage system instead of, say, flat fine or rate of $450, is rationally related to it. The system is already unfair and skewed against one group as is. The government would be protecting among the most vulnerable in society from winding up in situations that will be even harder for them to dig themselves out of, which would make them rely more on welfare programs for one, thus costing the government even more money in the long-run.
In the cruel and unusual punishment angle, if fines for parking violations that cripple poor people apparently aren't cruel and unusual (end result of possibly being towed and having your car sold because you parked illegally), how would a system based on income level or some other SES-related measure be cruel and unusual when it would be a reasonable fixed percentage fine for all groups to pay, relative to what they have? Just quickly googling cruel and unusual punishment (which I know less about), the current CA scheme in this context seems to be arguably violated by some court tests mentioned based on their potential or actual impact on poorer people, for the very not serious "crime" especially.
This is a random number/example but just to make it simple, say the fixed percentage for fines or tickets or whatever the government imposes is 0.5% of income. Someone making 100k a year pays $500. Someone making 30k a year pays $150. They'd be proportional to what they can reasonably pay, because of what they have. They pay the same percentage, it just equals a different amount. To people who make 100k, 150 compared to 500 sounds like nothing, a bargain, because it is - for them. But to someone making 30k, 500 is a lot of money for a parking ticket and 150 is much more feasible for their situation. They aren't "better off" or whatever because they pay less, because you factor their overall financial situation, and they all pay the same percentage. If someone making $30k a year is somehow "better off" or whatever than someone making $100k a year, especially in the SF Bay Area, well, that's huge news to me.
Idk if any of this would work (feasibly, realistically) or ever pass. Maybe eventually, as systems are recognizing the disparate effects of cash bail on poorer people, as I earlier said, and changing bail systems. But it doesn't seem like it would be some slam dunk constitutional violation to me. I haven't looked into any precedent on it (assuming there is any) but based on what I know this is what I got.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 06-03-2019 at 12:40 AM..
You made the claim that "higher fines for richer people would certainly be unusual punishment", that one is up to you to prove, not me
I also cannot find case law to show that drowning girl babies is unconstitutional, but that is not proof that such a measure might be upheld. It is too clearly unconstitutional on its face to have ever been tested.
I do agree that the entire removal of cars for parking violations should be reexamined, but having two tiers of punishment/fines depending on one's income is, imo, not practicable. As others have said, who or what is going to determine who can afford having a car towed and who can't? And if you throw out one public violation law, why not throw them all out? (And, yes, I can see many people thinking that might be a good idea, but I personally would not want to live in such a place.)
I am honestly just flabbergasted at all the pandering to the poor that seems to be taking place these days, and especially (it seems) in California.
Last edited by katharsis; 06-03-2019 at 07:06 AM..
Having a vehicle towed, if you're poor, basically steals your vehicle from you.
It's like, $175 plus to get it out of impound the first day, and the fine escalates very very quickly until the fine is more than the vehicle value, and at that point, the tow yard owns the vehicle.
It's insane. I first learned this reading Hand to Mouth by Linda Tirado. Towing companies who win the government contract can basically steal your car, and if you're in poverty, it's theirs to keep.
One of my son's cars was towed - parked illegally - and although it was irritating to go WAY out of town to redeem it from the tow lot the next day (for about $325) we did it. It was just an irritation.
What about people who can't do that? Now, that private tow company owns their vehicle.
How lucrative is THAT??
Insane. I really would like to see a STOP to his theft.
For those who don't understand this injustice, I highly recommend you read her book.
What can you do about that? You're seriously asking that question? Well, how about NOT parking illegally for starters. Bingo. Problem solved.
I've said it earlier, but really. Read these two books:
Hand to Mouth, by Linda Tirado
Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Just to give you a taste of Hand to Mouth, here's the post Linda Tirado made on a website, in answer to the question, "Why do the poor make such bad decision", that went viral, and was picked up by the Huffington Post website.
I read Nickel and Dimed about ten years ago, and I found it to be very interesting, well-written, eye-opening and informative.
However, I just read Tirado's post, and it disgusted me. Before I continue, I do know that there are many reasons why someone is poor through no fault of their own, but although I do commend Tirado for her honesty, I found her writing to be nothing but excuses for her continuing to make poor choices. Yes, I can understand much of her reasoning, although I don't agree with it, but when she chose to have children when she was living in a motel and then continued to smoke (what about her supposed love for her children -- and don't tell me about addiction -- plenty of people have stopped when they had enough motivation to do so) -- any sympathy I started to feel went right out of my mind and heart.
And, NO, I am not posting from the position of someone who has never been poor! I grew up wearing secondhand clothes and eating mostly things like 10-for-$1 pot pies and reconstituted dried milk; and I once worked a second job at Wal-Mart as an overnight cashier when my husband and I could not pay all our bills unless I did so, after a series of bad luck and (in retrospect) bad choices. (And we had two young children at the time.) I definitely do recognize the fact that -- at least to my knowledge -- no one is perfect!
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnd393
Whatever it is, if there a way to take something away from those who have the least, there are plenty of people who support it.
I had completely forgotten about this, it was such a long time ago, until I saw your post.
Back in the day I worked as a student worker at a major university. In that capacity, I was allowed to purchase an on-street parking pass on campus. The university sold about 3X more on street passes than they actually had spaces for, so it was very likely there wouldn't be a single spot left on the whole campus when I needed to be there. Also, I often had to be there after the shuttle busses were through running, so there wasn't a bus option to get home from work.
Those in charge of this system, and the bosses in each department, of course, had dedicated parking so were pretty tone-deaf to those who didn't.
And as anyone who has been on a major university knows, parking for a mile or so on the perimeter of the university is all tow away. Because parking is such an issue.
Parking tickets were $20.
Interesting memory, John. I definitely had a feeling that the system was set up to make back the little bit of money the university was paying me. I still, to this day, can't think of what I could have done differently to get to and from work besides park often illegally and incur a ticket.
Because, in fact, there always were spaces in the reserved lots available. Always.
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.
