The ‘goal’ is to stop people from breaking the law.
Do you think society is happy with some minimum level of lawbreaking, particularly when it affects individuals in that society in a negative way?
@crowmanyclouds: I will totally spot @kanicbird the idea that society’s goal is not, and should not be, 100% compliance 100% of the time. That “zero tolerance” attitude is unrealistic in any form of human endeavor. Eventually the law of diminishing marginal returns means you’re causing more collective societal harm than the impact of the incremental violations you’re suppressing.
Where he and I part company, and massively so, is with his glib assertion that society doesn’t have any stake in which lawbreakers are deterred, and therefore deterring only the poor people or the ordinary, while fully sparing the wealthy is a valid societal goal.
“Impunity” is the most socially corrosive feature of kleptocracies, crony states, pay to play, and all the rest. Stopping that at the top is essential.
Stopping it at the bottom is a darn good way to build a solid foundation of citizens that won’t stand for impunity at the top. Unlike the current crop of Trumply apologists who think there’s nuthin’ wrong with impunity as long as the right people have it.
To take the example cited of Jeff Bezos being a scofflaw, I do wonder if instead of citing Jeff Bezos 564 times as above, they couldn’t have started to investigate/document after the first 50 fines or so. Then brought misdemeanor charges of creating/maintaining a public nuisance around about fine #100. $16,000 is no big deal to Bezos, but a misdemeanor charge with a potential six month jail sentence (in CA at least) is bit more concerning for the wealthy and it would seem to me a far more effective deterrent. The threat alone one would assume would be enough to get him to stop flaunting his wealth and come up with an alternative plan.
Morally I am with you, but the US society is not based on morals it’s based on money and is in effect a cast system. Perhaps not that unmovable one that is common in other countries, but wealth buys privileges, and that’s what we consider fairness.
Everyone has the ability to fight a ‘parking ticket’ (or other such offense), only the rich will and only if the fine is high enough for them, and only the rich will have the best lawyers, and have the ability to make things very expensive for the state, so it is not in the best interest of the state to fine them, but to give them a what to them is a insignifiant charge, aka a parking fee, so everything runs smoothly. This doesn’t even mention lobbying and political connections that the rich tend to have over the poor. And it is fair, both rich and poor get the same fine, both have the ability to fight it and hire whoever they want and can.
So again what I’m saying with the US system and it’s foundation equal fines for rich and poor are needed to accomplish the goal of enough compliance and only a small pushback. it is what works here and income based fines will just throw our system into chaos and we will be worse off for it.
But for such things I would like to see mandatory community service added. Not necessarily for every offense, but as part of relaying that rich or poor we are all in this together and better for us to help each other then help ourselves.
That’s the United States. There are people who are bound by the law, but not protected, and others who are protected by the law, but not bound. You get used to it.
Yes, the status is most definitely not quo.
The problem is that the so-called limiting of illegal parking is borne pretty much on the backs of the lesser earners. That my friend is bullshit. The current system is almost as bad as saying all parking costs $100. If you can afford it, you get to park. Guess who can afford it?
The notion behind the current system is that the fines are set with respect to the relative harm to society. Which is why parking tickets are cheap, and why say… having a prohibited gathering (these days) is more than ten times more here in Dallas.
It’s not some sort of rich person scheme to avoid consequences- why they didn’t escalate on Bezos is beyond me. Most places have a pretty clear escalation scheme where they eventually issue a bench warrant for you to show up, and then go from there with arrest warrants, contempt of court, etc…
What they should do is require that if there’s a bench warrant, that YOU have to show up, not your attorneys. I guarantee that making Bezos show up in DC municipal court at the judge’s pleasure is a LOT more pain to him than any mere fine. That’s probably true for just about any rich person.
And for the record, at least here in Dallas, the fines are reasonably deterrent. $90 in total for a parking violation (inclusive of fees), is something that few people are just going to disregard, unlike my undergrad college’s $10 fines… right up until they couldn’t register for classes, get their degrees, etc…