|
nm posted:Revenue generation provides an incentive to trap people into speeding with poorly signed dramatic speed limit changes not supported by public safety. That's not the fault of the police. That's the democratically elected local government's call. ulmont posted:Not really. There are a lot of relatively vague traffic statutes, even before you pull speed trap bs. Most of that falls under racist bullshit used to harass minorities. That caveat goes far beyond traffic citations and this thread so I'm deliberately sidestepping that.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's not the fault of the police. That's the democratically elected local government's call.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
nm posted:Revenue generation provides an incentive to trap people into speeding with poorly signed dramatic speed limit changes not supported by public safety. Hahaha holy poo poo! In Queensland, Australia the state put in rules that the cops had to put out signs saying they're trying to catch people for speeding, so they put them right next to the wheel where they're basically invisible. I have a friend who works as a cop in NSW and he says they do actually have quotas they're supposed to reach on traffic tickets, and the cops hate doing them because they're annoying, take time away from stopping "real" crime and they don't directly see the money anyway, it's not like the cops get to keep it, it just goes to the RTA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:It still blows my mind that people can rack up 3-4-5 DUIs and somehow get a license again. They're just going to drive without a license man. Yes, some of them will get caught, but it won't be the majority of them. I'm sure sometime in 2020 cars will require you to scan your license but that's not the case. If it makes you feel any better Japan revokes drivers licenses permanently on the first DWI. I don't know if people still drive after that. Honestly, I think it's more convenient to have taken public transport 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Not really. There are a lot of relatively vague traffic statutes, even before you pull speed trap bs. If it were really about enforcing laws and providing a disincentive to break them, fines would be based around income/wealth instead of flat. Flat fines provide little incentive for wealthier people not to break the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:If it were really about enforcing laws and providing a disincentive to break them, fines would be based around income/wealth instead of flat. Flat fines provide little incentive for wealthier people not to break the law. Our constitution says you're not allowed to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
how about, don't speed and drive safe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:how about, don't speed and drive safe. Also, try not to be a minority. At least in public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Our constitution says you're not allowed to do that. Is this that thing where you present your opinion as fact?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:how about, don't speed and drive safe. whoa whao whoa lets not get crazy here, lets talk about realistic solutions like completely changing our democratic system to favor the poor over the rich
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:whoa whao whoa lets not get crazy here, lets talk about realistic solutions like completely changing our democratic system to favor the poor over the rich How is changing traffic citations to x% of income favoring the poor over the rich rather than leveling the playing field?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How is changing traffic citations to x% of income favoring the poor over the rich rather than leveling the playing field? The unfortunate wealthy are already unfairly targeted by higher tax rates under our quasi-communist progressive tax brackets. What you are proposing would be yet another violation of the equal protection clause. Farrrrt
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
The working poor are inherently morally corrupt, as evidenced by their poor career choices. This is why they must be punished ten times more harshly for minor traffic offenses than say, a first year biglaw associate. (about 1.5% of gross yearly income vs. .15%) (Assuming the purpose of the laws are to discourage bad behaviour, as opposed to generating revenue) joat mon fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The unfortunate wealthy are already unfairly targeted by higher tax rates under our quasi-communist progressive tax brackets. It's not equal protections, since being wealthy isn't a protected class; it's due process/excessive punishment. I.e. $40,000 for a simple speeding ticket would be unconstitutional. Edit: Finland, or wherever the gently caress, doesn't have our Constitution, but by all means, everyone please continue bleating about how $175 speeding tickets are the root of income inequality in America. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Just as revenue is not the sole reason for traffic tickets, neither are traffic tickets the root of income inequality. You're like the guy who, when asked by a lost balloonist where he was, replied, "about 50 feet up!" 100% correct, but either malicious or nigh unbelievably obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
The price of food is inherently oppressive to the poor. Low-nutrition options cost less, and fresher, healthier choices cost more and are harder to get. Housing is inherently oppressive to the poor. The compounding factors of the price of land and construction and maintenance mean that for housing to be more affordable, units take up smaller spaces, closer to each other, made out of cheaper materials, and receive substandard attention. Buying and maintaining a car, getting and keeping a job, health care, child care, all of life's general endeavors are harder when you are poor. Its not a mystery, nobody is a genius for having figured it out, and nobody else needs it explained to them. Just picking one of the things thats harder because you're poor and saying, "Well, the solution is to make it harder on rich people too, because then it will feel fair to me." is, in my opinion, malicious and obtuse, because it manages to ignore any concerted mental effort at actually addressing the real problem, and does so to sate a childish thirst for vengeance against people considered to have been born luckier than us. The 87 more causally related reasons why poor people are poor deserve ire and mental energy far more than some person on the internet who doesn't agree about the endemicity of this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
What's the downside of pegging legal fines to income? Even if you ignore the benefits from the standpoint of inequality, normalizing fines for income provides a more effective deterrent, i.e. the point of the fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
blarzgh makes a good point, poverty causes many societal problems that should be addressed with policy changes, disproportionately punitive tickets are just one of them. Also yeah, the point of day-fines is to make sure tickets retain their deterrent effect against the rich. doverhog fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Please, make it stop. People standing up to minimum wage workers was better than this
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The price of food is inherently oppressive to the poor. Low-nutrition options cost less, and fresher, healthier choices cost more and are harder to get. The government does not directly control food prices, housing prices, car prices, car maintenance prices, health care prices, etc. So while you're right that fixing administrative fines will not solve all of the problems of the poor, it will help, and it's something that the government does directly control. And I'm not talking about just making it harder on rich people; I'm talking about making it easier on poor people, too. And I'd like to hear your basis for income- or wealth-based fines running afoul of equal protection or excessive fines. The point of the fine is to be punitive, and while $300 is punitive for someone making $15,000 a year, it isn't really for someone making $150,000. Punitive damages in civil cases are set through similar means. I also think you're underestimating the effect this has on poor people. It's not even just the initial fine, but all the fees that are stacked on top of it if you can't afford to pay it immediately. If you haven't, you should really watch the John Oliver segment on municipal violations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
My thought on traffic ticket fines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbOtyWTRZ_g&t=14s Edit: But yes fines should always be on a sliding scale based on income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Like I said, its not a violation of equal protections; it is a violation of due process the same way handing out the death penalty for jay walking would be. You can't fine a millionaire $150,000 for going 1mph over the speed limit, because that punishment is excessive relative to the crime. And what the gently caress are you going to do, set up tribunals, and issue subpoenas and hire auditors to go over everyone's income to determine how big their fine should be? Are speeding tickets going to be 18 month inquiries where the State pays thousands of dollars to hire appraisers, and accountants? Who gets to ball park it? Who's going to investigate it? The State can't make you testify against yourself about how much money you make, or what your salary is. And, the first time a single mom who makes $125,000 a year, but has a mortgage and a bunch of student debt, and three kids, etc. gets a $22,000.00 ticket, and has to declare bankruptcy, people will be shouting about how thats not fair. Its a loving stupid idea, all the way around. And really, if you don't actually have a millenial hard-dick for sticking it to wealthy people, then what you're really talking about is making traffic citations easier to deal with for poor people. Besides, every non-backwards state has a points system that, if you get too many tickets regardless of your income, you lose your license. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just picking one of the things thats harder because you're poor and saying, "Well, the solution is to make it harder on rich people too, because then it will feel fair to me." is, in my opinion, malicious and obtuse, because it manages to ignore any concerted mental effort at actually addressing the real problem, and does so to sate a childish thirst for vengeance against people considered to have been born luckier than us. I'm not sure anyone was arguing for changes in fines at the expense of efforts to mitigate those other 87 reasons people are poor. This is something that governments can change simply by rewriting their local laws; they don't need to build infrastructure or find a ton of skilled people to keep it running. If it's OK for some people to pay fines that impact their ability to pay for living expenses, why is it an unfair punishment others have to pay punitive fines that still don't hurt their ability to live? I'm not saying eat the rich, or gently caress them because they don't have "real problems". I'm wondering how a fine smaller than what I could piss away without thinking is supposed to make me care about a law if I don't care about it already. If fines aren't principally for revenue, wouldn't that mean they're principally for deterrence? E: blarzgh posted:Besides, every non-backwards state has a points system that, if you get too many tickets regardless of your income, you lose your license. Problem solved. Then why bother with fines?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
quote:Then why bother with fines? Because you should always try the least impactful means for deference first. A 200 fine, which you can piss away fine but the majority of Americans can't, is much less harsh then revoking someone's ability to drive
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And what the gently caress are you going to do, set up tribunals, and issue subpoenas and hire auditors to go over everyone's income to determine how big their fine should be? Doesn't the IRS have records on what someone's income is? Day-fines are not based on total net worth, it's taxed income, and that information should already be there with no extra tribunals needed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Because you should always try the least impactful means for deference first. A 200 fine, which you can piss away fine but the majority of Americans can't, is much less harsh then revoking someone's ability to drive But I thought the points were the progressive punishment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Proving what someone's wealth is, beyond a reasonable doubt is a much bigger endeavor than you think it is in this country. And once again, the relevant inquiry under our constitution is whether or not the punishment is reasonable relative to the crime. Someone with more free time on their hands can't get extra jail time for the same crime as someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:But I thought the points were the progressive punishment? Points work for people that either can pay fines with impunity or don't get a poo poo otherwise by eventually removing their license. It functions in the same way that jail time would be the next level after probation. Just points wouldn't act a deterrent until they get to level of removing a license, just like unsupervised probation would't stop people from using Call it what you want
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
there's nothing saying it can't be reasonable relative to the crime relative to the individual, afaik so like 100% of monthly income for simple speeding is unreasaonble, but 10%, maybe not anything's constitutional if a court says it is
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
If one person makes $500,000 a year and one person makes $50,000 a year why is it not reasonable to fine the first person $500, and the second $50. You are fining both people something that's around two hours worth of pay. If you fine them the same amount of money, it could be compared to jailing the more wealthy person for 1 week and the less wealthy person for 10 weeks because the first person's time is worth ten times as much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Proving what someone's wealth is, beyond a reasonable doubt is a much bigger endeavor than you think it is in this country. Doesn't everyone pay tax? Again, it's not wealth, it's income that was already taxed and is on record for being taxed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Doesn't everyone pay tax? Again, it's not wealth, it's income that was already taxed and is on record for being taxed. How familiar are you with the rules of evidence? Or enter evidence into the record Are traffic courts courts of record?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
I embraced the derail, I know nothing about your crazy rear end courts. This: Doesn't everyone pay tax? Again, it's not wealth, it's income that was already taxed and is on record for being taxed. is in reference to how day-fines work in a country where they are in use. doverhog fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I embraced the derail, I know nothing about your crazy rear end courts. As mentioned quote:Proving what someone's wealth is, beyond a reasonable doubt is a much bigger endeavor than you think it is in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Let's be honest--fining people in accordance to their ability to pay is MARXISM and would immediately commence to TEAR THIS COUNTRY APART Hail Trump, bless the coming and going of him, may his passing cleanse the world
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Legal question: can I get an injunction against this conversation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:16
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Legal question: can I get an injunction against this conversation? No, but you can declare yourself a sovereign citizen and prevent it from creating joinder with you.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
If fines are scaled to income, and you are a lawyer with no job and $150,000 in debt, does the city just give you money every time you speed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Fine!
blarzgh fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Legal question: can I get an injunction against this conversation? No kidding. This thread used to be interesting and I could laugh at the misfortune of others in legal peril. Now I feel guilty for both feeling sorry for the poor and scorning rich lawbreakers. I might head over to D&D to cheer myself up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:51
|
|
