chew on, sorry.
moto I actually do have a way to make this work. Instead of fining, punishing or trying to teach people a lesson. Why don’t you just bill them for services rendered.
Mr. Smith it was clear you had the ability to leave and chose not to, and while we make no judgement towards your moviation, your decision to stay cost the state X dollars. Here’s the breakdown. We would therefor like Y dollars in compensation, this way we can offset some of the expense of your rescue expenses.
Okay with that?
How many mandatory evacuations have been false alarms over the past, say, 25 years?
If it’s any sort of significant number, then you’ve made your case.
So far as I know, though, there haven’t been “numerous times” that people have been told there’s a mandatory evacuation and it’s been a false alarm. I’m willign to allow that I don’t live in the area and maybe they’ve cried wolf, as you suggest.
Enlighten me. I agree you have potentially made a good case. Show me.
Really big shew.
Has this ever been enforced?
And just because it’s a law elsewhere does not make it a good idea.
How can you bill them? Do you have a contract that is enforceable by any authority or court?
Now, you can fine them, since that is part of the social contract.
Incidentally, I’d like to post the relevant sections of Louisiana’s code:
I’d get on board with that. In fact, there’s a good analogy: we charge people now for ambulance trips.
That addresses the actual ill I’m trying to prevent: cost of rescue missions. It doesn’t directly address the problem of rescue space being taken, but since it should have a deterrent effect on people deciding to stay, that goal is met as well.
Sure. I like this plan.
Not for nothing, but I’d just like to mention that the governor didn’t exactly live up to her part of the contract, either.
It could be set as a fine… but just so you know, contract law includes a concept called “quasi-contract.”
If I see your dog hit by a car, and I rush him to the vet and pay the vet’s bill, I can collect from you. You might say, “Listen, I appreciate the free vet visit, and I would have taken Fluffy myself if I’d been home, but I wasn’t, and I’m not paying you a dime; we never agreed that you could take Fluffy to the vet and we don’t have a contract that entitles you to recover that cost from me – you did it out of the gooodness of your heart, and I never agreed to it.”
I can recover from you in quasi-contract.
Sorry, don’t have the time, and it really was only a hypothetical to show how people could reasonably “ignore” a mandatory evacuation without being selfish or stupid.
Perhaps someone else will pick up the banner?
Absolutely no argument from me on that one, tdn. But there are plenty of threads now concerning obligations various branches of the government have toward hurricane victims.
This thread concerns certain obligations those victims have as well, and the failure of one party to live up to their end of the bargain doesn’t absolve them of their responsibility. Indeed, it makes it more difficult for those authorities to unfuck themselves and get on with work.
Thanks for the lesson yet again, Bricker. I’m not a lawyer, as you know, but I do have an interest in the law. Participating in a lot of the discussions here has taught me a great deal about this subject.
So moto the ball’s in your court, is the main purpose of your sanction to offset the funds expended or to teach people a lesson? Sending them a quasi-contract does both, without the apperance of kicking them in the teeth, or do you want someone to get the boot to them in order to deter the others?
How much of a fine do you think is needed to deter people from staying at home? $500? $10,000? $100,000?
Really? Huh. It seems that every other time I read a thread where you’ve posted, I learn another reason why Judge Judy has little concept of the law.
[/hijack]
Not for nothing (again), but the death penalty is sometimes justified by declaring it as a deterrent, but it’s been pretty much proven that it’s not. If the threat of death is not enough to keep people from killing others, I have to wonder about a fine keeping people from abandoning their homes.
Has this ever been done, in actual practice, anywhere? It might be nice to see a case study.
I don’t really care about the money. Collecting fines from people like this won’t come anywhere close to offsetting relief costs. It would be a fart in a friggin’ hurricane.
sorry.
The presence of the law and its associated penalties is to set out what is legal behavior and provide a sufficiently strong incentive for following it. For most people it being the law is enough. People generally are law-abiding and want to be such. For others, the desire or need to avoid the sanction comes into play.
And let’s not lose sight of the goal here, which is for people to obey the order and get to safety, which we can all agree, I hope, is an important goal.
Yeah, and the fact that we have speeding fines doesn’t entirely stop speeding. Does that mean we should just take the speed limit signs down entirely?
You just argued against laws and criminal and civil penalties entirely with this post of yours. Forgive me for saying, fut that argument is breathtakingly stupid.
I have no doubt that this law and its enforcement won’t fix the problem entirely. But if it helps to a significant degree, then it has worked as much as laws generally can.
Not at all. I was just wondering aloud whether punitive fines would have any deterrent effect at all. Perhaps, as you wish, they will. Perhaps not.
Once again, it would be nice to see such a law in action and determine what effect, if any, it’s had. You know, data.
Do the helocopter pilots negotiate costs before they pick the guy up?
Pilot: We’ll rescue you Mr. Smith, but it’s going to cost you $1500.
Smith: No way. I’ll give you $500.
Pilot: $1200, and that’s as low as I can go.
Smith: $800 and not a penny more
Pilot: You think I’m crazy? Look, the cost of fuel has skyrocketed. I’ll lose my shirt at $800.
Smith: [Silence]
Pilot: Mr. Smith, you still there? Mr. Smith? Uh-oh… OK, on to the next house!
Woops. I plead a severe caffine deficiency.
Here’s a different outlook:
In order to be most effective, evacuation orders need to be issued well in advance. The problem here is that this increases the likelyhood of false alarms.
What we are talking about here is punishment in the case it is not a false alarm. The more likely it is a real disaster, the less time people will have to learn of the order and comply, so compliance will be lowest in the cases where it is most important.
FEMA, Red cross, etc. do little in the event of a false alarm. Maybe they provide a shelter or two, but evacuees bear the expense of evacuating, the stuff that got stolen from your house while you were gone, etc.
Instead of punishing those who don’t evacuate, how about making whole those that
evacuate in the case of false alarms? Take some of the real risks of timely evacuation off their backs.