Why do people confuse the original offense with non-compliance follow on penalties?

I do get it. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I don’t understand. If it were true that 7 nines of people have no problem with traffic tickets, then it would be the case that there would only be around 30 people who ever have a problem. As it is a bit higher than that, it is something that we should address, rather than just complain about.

In the situation that you have indicated (not sure if it a hypothetical or a real story, you have not cited it in any way to actually get any details) this person was negligent in her duties to the court, sure. According to you, she had a mental health problem. What she was effectively telling the court was that she needed help, what she got in return was punishment.

And that is what you are not getting. In your cherry picked example, yes, this person was irresponsible. She had a mental health problem that prevented her from discharging her duties. That’s not really the court’s fault, but it’s not something that I would be complaining about. Treating drug addiction as the disease it is, rather than as something to punish people over, would be a good step in that direction.

That was the last step in a callous legal system that ended up putting her at the mercy of these jailers, sure. They are ultimately responsible, but the system that put her in their hands shares enough of the blame that we ought to maybe look at it and find a way to get better results, rather than bitch and whine that there are people who at most maybe hyperbolized this event. You’ve had far more negative to say about the people bringing this sort of thing to public awareness than you have about the people who were responsible for her death.

Right I know that you chose this example as a case where there aren’t “mitigating factors”, but what is your point in doing so? People with those “mitigating factors” get caught up and have their lives ruined over parking tickets all the time too. That you can imagine a marginal case that you can complain about doesn’t mean that there are not people who really are having these “mitigating factors.”

There are plenty of case studies to be had, with hundreds of millions of fellow citizens, and as such, you can cherry pick a story that, if you generalize outside that cherry picked case, you can use to “prove” anything you want. Cherry picking tells me much more about the person who picked it then whatever it is they are trying to prove.

Ar you asking me, specifically, to draw up legislation on the specifics of how to deal with this, or more generalities?

IF the former, no thanks.

If the later, then recognizing that the justice system is supposed to ensure justice, not dole out punishment, should give you a hint as to what sorts of things should be done with people who have difficulties in managing their affairs. Which means that the solution will be different on a case by case basis. Fortunately it is in a system made for the purpose of deciding things on a case by case basis, so we are all good.

But BigT explicitly mentions the non-compliance follow on penalties, which does not appear to be a good example of someone ignoring them.

What exactly does “a case by case basis” mean?

Someone gets a bunch of speeding tickets and blows off their court dates. What should the system do about that? The person never showed up to argue that they couldn’t afford to pay the fines, so the judge wouldn’t know if they are rich or poor or middle class. So how is justice to be ensured?

Does the judge issue a bench warrant to compel appearance? What if the speeder can’t afford a day off from work? How does the judge determine that?

Saying “we should ensure justice” is all well and good, but that’s not going to come about with vague generalities.

Regards,
Shodan

This is poisoning the well.

Someone gets a bunch of speeding tickets and does not pay or appear at court. What should the system do? Here are a few ideas:

  • Make the choice to go to court a choice that doesn’t inherently punish people. Make traffic court convenient for people who work an hourly job or who care for children during the day.

  • Make the charge for a ticket on a sliding scale so that the poor aren’t more severely punished than the rich.

  • If there are unpaid tickets, work with the Revenue Service of the State to garnish tax refunds or garnish wages to pay for the tickets, over time if need be.
    Bottom line, this is a person who didn’t pay a fine, not a person who is a danger to themselves or others, so let’s just pump the brakes on issuing arrest warrants.

Well, a person who speeds may be a danger to themselves and others. And I suspect that this is more likely to be true of someone who gets ticketed for speeding many times.

On one end of the scale you have parking tickets ($15.00), on the other end of the spectrum you have capital murder ($1,000,000.00 for example)

Both ends of the spectrum, the extremely wealthy are going to have no problem dealing with. The it hurts thing isn’t built to handle both ends, it is a median that is supposed to act as a deterrent to both ends but it cannot be equipped to handle both ends equally.
I’m open to suggestions that both act as a deterrent and perform the necessary function?

If a person has driven in an unsafe manner often enough to lose their license, it becomes a different tale.

However, I do NOT accept non-payment of a fine as a reason to lose one’s license and be deemed a danger to other drivers.

See, and the reality of it is this : This person while maybe not a danger to others, cannot be trusted to show up to court, so we will keep them here until such date. I do like the sliding scale idea though

As to the court idea, the only people who need to go to court for a ticket are the people who feel like they got jobbed. 99.9% of the time you’re paying the ticket.

Steve Jobs used to get a new mercedez every 6 months so he never had to go to the DMV for new plates …

Sorry, but I don’t want a hint. I want to know what you personally think should be done about a person who gets numerous speeding tickets and doesn’t pay the fines.

Nitpick- it’s not someone who didn’t pay a fine; it’s someone who didn’t show up to court, or pay the fine in lieu of showing up.

When someone gets a speeding/traffic ticket (parking tickets are typically civil), they are charged with an actual crime, albeit a misdemeanor.

At that point, you have the choice of doing one of two things- plead not guilty and show up for your criminal trial, or plead guilty/nolo contendere and accept the penalty, which is a fine.

The point is that you are essentially blowing off a criminal trial when you don’t show up to court, or if you fail to pay. In that sense, it’s very much the misdemeanor equivalent of skipping bail. And what you see when they issue warrants, jail people, and drag them into court is the state essentially saying that since they charged you with a crime, they’re going to use their legitimate power to force you into court to answer for that crime.

The whole notion that you can plead and pay without showing up to court IS the convenient part in a broad sense.

I think the part that’s missing here is the fact that these things are legally considered crimes, even if they’re not serious ones.

So you’re missing the point if you think someone’s losing their license for not paying a fine. They’re losing their license because they disregarded the criminal justice system, which is something entirely different.

There’s a whole bunch of issues all getting jumbled up here.

a) The idea that speeding tickets shouldn’t land you in jail, under any circumstances.

b) The concept of valid reasons to not pay, or attend court, for one ticket.

c) Set fines, and if they’re an example of equality not being fairness.

d) Plus, accidental deaths in custody, and how they shouldn’t happen.

Point d) Is bleedin’ obvious, and has nothing much to do with a)-c). The conflation of a) and d) appears to be what the thread was intended to be about. No one should avoidably die in jail due to lack of care, that’s not part of any punishment, procedures should be put in place to prevent that, rather than deciding the minuscule possibility of it happening should be used as a reason to not send people to jail. I don’t want burglary or even murder suspects to die in jail because they had an untreated medical emergency either.

I personally disagree strongly with a) anyway; someone regularly driving in an unsafe way that is ignoring fines and penalties needs to be stopped. They may be doing so because they are mentally ill, but that does not change the fact that they could kill themselves or others, and the risk of that happening is significantly higher than the tiny odds of them having a medical emergency in jail that is not treated.

Ideally there should be another way to pick up that people shouldn’t be on the road, but realistically it’s not likely to happen perfectly. My own grandpa, when he got dementia, drove like an utter maniac; he could behave long enough to pass a re-test, but he was going far too fast with terrible reflexes the rest of the time. It was obvious he was going to cause an accident sooner or later, my parents wouldn’t let him drive me anywhere and tried to get his license revoked, and it was only sheer luck that when it happened it was a solo crash and he survived it. Getting drivers like that off the road is in everyone’s best interests, and if that requires arresting them because they’re ignoring tickets, so be it. Where I live, get caught speeding 4 times in less than 3 years and you’re likely to lose your license. If you’re going crazy speeds, it’s less than 4.

That said, it’s not in anyone’s best interest to tip those just this side of solvency over the edge because they once got caught going 5mph over the limit. There’s a scale from reasonable error to aw, hell no, and while I don’t mind the book being thrown at those who are actually an oblivious danger, the system should work with those who are making an attempt to work with it. That may mean allowing some kind of remote court attendance for minor offences, or reduced fines for those with low income (and larger fines for those with higher income), or dropping fines for community service for all, with flexible hours to make it possible for those with tenuous work/life situations to comply without meaning they lose a their job.

Errr… abusing drugs is not immoral or illegal in itself, trafficking, possession, operating a vehicle while impaired, etc… are.

However there is a similarity to compounding penalties for drug addicts who, for example, amass multiple possession charges, are unable to go to court, pay the fines, etc…

As for the OP, I’d say click-bait, TV news teasers and selling newspapers.

Using drugs may or may not be immoral - abusing them is, almost by definition. ISTM that becoming addicted to drugs to the point where you die while detoxing is abuse. If the woman in the OP went into withdrawal after being arrested, there is a good chance that she was driving under the influence. Maybe that was why she was speeding, and why she got so many speeding tickets. It may even have contributed to her failure to show up for her court dates.

Regards,
Shodan

(Accidental post)

Here’s an idea for fairness in the criminal justice system. Abolish monetary fines entirely and impose a system where all fines are replaced with hours of community service - one hour of service for every dollar in fines. For example…a $100.00 fine would become 100 hours of community service. While we’re at it, put in a law requiring employers to give unpaid time off for their employees to do this community service, and to forbid discrimination / retaliation for such participation - the only exception being is if the employer was the victim of the crime in question.

Now, how would we pay for all this? Simple. One hundred hours of community service would cost $725.00 at minimum wage. Multiply that by a thousand people, and you’re looking at $725,000.00 worth of free labor. That should free up enough money in other areas to pay for this system.

Equality is assured - when the rich d-bag caught speeding in his Aston-Martin wears the same county orange on the same chain gang picking up the same trash by the side of the same interstate as some poor good-old-boy caught speeding in his hooptie, they’re gonna feel the same pain. No buying your way outta THAT one - the rich and the poor suffer the same, which is exactly how it should be.

And when the person doesn’t show up for their mandatory community service, what do you suggest be done?

Haul their ass up in front of a judge, then let good old fashioned common sense decide the penalty.

Should they be?

Should a simple speeding ticket, something that I’d estimate 95+% of drivers could legitimately be written up for every single time they operate their car, be a matter for our criminal justice system to deal with?

Understand, you get a big thumbs up from me for involving the police and courts when a driver is a specific danger to others, a proven reckless driver, no insurance, etc. But if this person is not a danger to other people, why would you charge them with a crime, or something that could become a crime if they aren’t properly respectful of the system?

Those are two different issues. It only confuses because you insist on treating them as one.

Numerous speeding tickets, they should lose their license. If they get caught driving without their license, then they can have their car towed and impounded.

Doesn’t pay fines, we should make sure that the fines are something that are affordable, even if uncomfortable, and if they can afford them, but refuse to pay, they should be taken care of through tax refund or wage garnishment.

What do you think should happen to someone who has a fine for going 4mph over the speed limit, was not able to take off work to make their court date and didn’t have the $200 to pay? Should they be punished further? Does punishing them further get them more time off work or more money somehow?

I do judge a civilization by how many levels of coercion we have to ensure proper behavior of citizenry before we resort to violence. So, IMHO, every step we can put in between someone breaking a rule, and that someone having violence inflicted upon them in an attempt to get them to follow that rule, the better. We are way too quick to use violence to punish people for non-violent infractions.