Sounds like a good start to me.
There is no such absence; another system of funding was discussed above. Nor is there any principled reason to assert that there are not other systems yet. What research have you done into other municipal funding schemes?
Wait, what?
What conservative tradition is that part of?
More Calvinist than conservative, I think.
I don’t know that it is, really. Peter Vierick’s really good defense of conservativism (his 1940 Atlantic article “But I’m a Conservative!” does include the warning “The history of mass movements affords vastly more evidence for original sin than for any natural goodness of man.” but…
Security and law enforcement who of course are magically not basically evil. Because magic.
So I don’t get it, if you are given the opportunity to have a payment plan for a fine, and still don’t pay it, will another warrant then be issued later? If not then what happens? I live in a state where traffic violations are criminal misdemeanors and I think it’s fucking dreadful that a judge could technically sentence me to a year in prison for speeding 15 miles over the speed limit if he felt like it.
Agreed, if we read your statement generously.
Agreed.
Hold up there partner. Didn’t you just say that man is basically evil? We need some method of controlling man’s baser nature?
And then you don’t think this applies to the cops, prosecutors, juries, judges, prison guards, tax collectors, soldiers, government bureaucrats, and people in positions of authority?
What the fuck?
The cops are the same sort of fallen human beings as the citizenry the supposedly serve and protect. We can’t point to the fallen nature of the citizenry and give free reign to the cops, because the cops are assholes too, just like the rest of us. Of course you are correct that in this fallen world utopia is impossible, but we can mitigate the damage our fallen human natures cause each other. And the foundation of this is that the authorities can never be given a blank check, because it is axiomatic that they will abuse such authority.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It is the citizenry that must watch the cops, even as the cops watch over the citizens. The cops derive their authority from the citizenry, they are not an occupying army of saints, but are delegated the natural authority that every citizen has to enforce the law and protect order. When the cops abuse their authority and cause chaos rather than order, we must correct the cops, not shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that certain people have to be treated with a firm hand.
Yeah, certain people need to be treated with a firm hand. Those people are the cops, the judges, the prosecutors, the prison guards, the lawmakers. This is the purpose of our Constitution. The cops work for US, and the “us” includes everyone, it even includes people of different races, it even includes actual criminals. Everyone deserves justice, including criminals. The notion that criminals don’t deserve to be treated fairly is incoherent, because how would you determine that someone is a criminal, just by looking at them?
If you think criminals don’t deserve to be treated fairly, it would only be fair to have some sort of system to determine who is a criminal and doesn’t deserve to be treated fairly, and who is a decent citizen who does. And wouldn’t that system of dividing citizens from criminals have to be fair? Because otherwise decent citizens would unfairly be treated as criminals? And maybe this system should be, you know, systematized, so it doesn’t depend on the arbitrary authority of one or a few fallen human beings? And this system would be called the rule of law. It would include lots of things, maybe if you read the Constitution you might get some good ideas along these lines.
Sounds like Thomas Hobbes. He was the 17th century political theorist who wrote Leviathon.
His theory was that human beings as individuals were naturally inclined to their own self-interest. So if they were able to do so they would all seek to take as much advantage over the people around them as they could, what Hobbes called “the war of all against all”. The result of everyone fighting to grab all they could and to defend themselves from everyone else would be the general collapse of civilization: “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Nobody would want to live like this but what was the alternative? To Hobbes, the only way to avoid this situation was for everyone to agree to submit to an absolute authority. This authority would run society and preserve law and order and everyone else would do what they were told. People would have minimal liberty but they would have security and prosperity.
That’s what I fear …
I was raised to see Conservatism as being slow to effect change, to invest in new programs, or to adopt untested theories whole-heartedly. Naturally, during the ‘Civil Rights Era’ this deliberation got rather a bad reputation.
Religion, when it was raised at all, was presented as an argument for a progressive approach, which is what one would expect in a country with a large number of Christians.
I’m am startled that anyone other than a rabble rouser running for office would openly base an argument on the basic evil in mankind.
Well, one 23 years old’s opinion from 70 years ago settles it then.
As a habitual scofflaw, who believes he should pay his debt to society: I think it’s a good thing, and sets a good precedent. Traffic and other minor crimes shouldn’t generate huge penalties, and having problems taking care of them shouldn’t be able to easily snowball into huge penalties.
I don’t think it goes far enough, though. As was mentioned upthread, the incentive for police to profit from pursuing minor crime out of proportion to its danger to society has to be curbed somehow.
Yes. I think so. Some articles say if they keep avoiding court, the city can issue a new warrant… or they can simply intercept their tax return. It doesn’t say what they’ll do if they keep failing to pay fines but I’d say it’s the same.
This doesn’t appear to wipe out the cases pending in court, it just wipes out the current warrant. Not only are the fears of criminals getting off scott free unfounded, but it appears no one is. They still have to deal with their case, this just says they won’t arrest them for not having done so already.
It’s interesting because you could go either way. If you take them at face value, conservatives see no need for social safety nets because charities and the kindness of strangers will raise money for people who need it. That sounds like someone who thinks mankind is good. Liberals see this doesn’t work, realizes man is selfish, and so uses the leviathan of the state to extort the populace to do the “right” thing on a whole host of issues.
So is that a prediction then?
Ferguson makes apartheid South Africa look cool. It’s so far beyond dysfunction it’s close to insane.
According to the NYT, 40% of adult black males are ‘missing’ - that’s 50% for younger adult male:
This thread is directed to a decision that occurred entirely within the legal system.
So, your solution is to simply disband their existing police department and bring in an all-new one, then?
Comparing the results of postwar de-Baathification (using this approach) and postwar de-Nazification (using a lighter touch) suggests that this may be a bit too extreme.
Just out of curiosity, where do you get your security and law enforcement from? Which planet? Which factory? Which alternate dimension?
Old-fashioned Progressivism and Urban Reform for all !
Forwards, Brothers !
How does it work going forward?
I have $200 in unpaid tickets, say, which I ignore. The judge schedules a hearing where I can either pay, serve the alternate sentence (jail or community service or whatever), or convince the judge I dont have the money. I ignore the notice of the hearing and don’t show up. The court finds me guilty of not paying my fine, and of ignoring the hearing, and increases the fine.
I then get another ticket. Under the old way, I could be arrested and made to pay. As of now, I get another ticket, which I ignore, and another hearing, which I ignore, leading to more fines, which I ignore, and I get another ticket, which I ignore.
What is the downside for me of simply ignoring any ticket I get? Nothing happens if I do.
Regards,
Shodan
Presumably (speculating since this isn’t fleshed out very well) the unpaid items can be recovered through garnishments similar to other collection efforts for unpaid items. It works in a number of other areas of unpaid items.