Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Jethro
Jun 1, 2000

I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm fine with waiving court costs or not collecting a judgement from someone who lacks the ability to pay, but I don't think someone should be allowed to continue to drive recklessly because they lack the means to pay their traffic tickets, or choose to not appear in court indefinitely because they lack the means to pay their fines, which were the examples we were discussing. What do you think we should do to law breakers in those situations? You seem to be avoiding the question.

I'm sad you didn't get the reference, but I don't feel the need to seriously dispute every frivolous ad hom thrown at me.
If someone who can't pay a fine continues to drive recklessly, then you suspend their license as punishment for their continued reckless driving.

Suspending someone's license for non-payment isn't a punishment for reckless driving; it's an inducement to pay, which isn't going to do anything except screw someone over if they can't pay in the first place.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jethro
Jun 1, 2000

I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

wateroverfire posted:

So I think the companion question to "don't punish people for not paying fines they allegedly can't afford" is "how do you enforce order among people you can't fine" and it's a legitimate question that the advocacy groups you're quoting don't have to address but that society does.

If you're too poor to pay a speeding ticket, what prevents you from speeding whenever you want to?
Not fining people who can't pay fines is not the same as letting people off scot-free. If someone can't pay, they still get a ticket, and have to take time out of their lives to demonstrate they are unable to pay. And I think most places, at least in the US, have mechanisms to suspend licenses for continued violations within a given time period. This policy isn't about never suspending anyone's license if they're poor, it's about not suspending someone's license just because they can't pay a fine and the violation would not otherwise call for a license suspension.

Jethro
Jun 1, 2000

I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

wateroverfire posted:

Man this might sound horrible but that seems like an expensive proposition for the taxpayers for little gain. How much should the state spend to separate those who can't pay from those who merely don't want to?
$5 per case? "yes, these tax returns you showed us confirm that you don't make poo poo. Fine reduced." How much more expensive is forcing people to pay fines they can't, causing them to lose their job and go on unemployment or welfare or even go to jail?

  • Locked thread