This:
If you owed me money, I wouldn’t get to arrest you, impound your car, and hold you in a cell until you paid what you owed, plus a hefty charge on top. Why should the State get to just because they employ a bunch of guys with guns and built a bunch of cells for them to run?
What I’m saying is that the law is stupid, and hurts poor people for being less able than the rich to absorb the chosen penalty for the “crime”.
The penalty for this crime is something that rich people can trivially do. It’s barely even being responsible for their actions because the penalty is nothing more than paying a bill that they can handle without effort.
That could be okay. Although, it seems like poor people would be able to do anything that resulted in a fine, since they will never pay it anyway. Drive without insurance? I’m not paying the fine anyway, so I won’t get insurance. Same with registration or a license. If you reach a certain point where you can’t pay any of the debt you owe, what would keep you from just racking up fines?
I understand what you are saying. Although, it seems like poor people would be able to do anything that resulted in a fine, since they will never pay it anyway. Drive without insurance? I’m not paying the fine anyway, so I won’t get insurance. Same with registration or a license. If you reach a certain point where you can’t pay any of the debt you owe, what would keep you from just racking up fines?
The law is supposed to be applied equally. If the fine for speeding is $100, as set by the state legislature, county board, or city council, then it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, matter if you are Bill Gates or Joe Schmoe.
I’m not advocating anarchy here. You have to have insurance since it protects other people, driving without it can harm others, so that’s not a “fine only” type of violation.
The other stuff, it’s just money owed to the state, I am not going to be horrified that someone is driving with a lapsed registration. The insurance company may not like your expired drivers license, which makes it everyone’s problem, but beyond that, it’s just some money not paid on time.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and ditch out on paying a parking ticket.
That seems to be a rather lax definition of “harm”.
Driving with a lapsed registration means your car hasn’t been inspected for safety or emissions. Things that can harm others.
In some places, in my state, NJ, updating a registration is just a matter of writing a check (which, this reminds me, I need to do). Inspection is a completely separate process, and NJ doesn’t even DO safety anymore!
But, the concept needn’t change, if the item in question protects others from damage caused by you, then I’m absolutely OK with it being strongly enforced.
And by “strongly enforced” do you mean fines and jail time?
You bet. We can’t allow people to put others at risk with no teeth behind the rules. It’s when the offense is essentially monetary that I feel we are hammering the poor and letting the wealthy off easy.
That is equal, but unfair. Laws are supposed to be fair, not equal. That’s why Bill Gates doesn’t, for example, pay the same taxes as Joe BurgerFlipper. Your proposed “equality” also creates a strong moral hazard, because it means Bill Gates gets to speed with impunity simply because he has the financial means to.
So you’re essentially arguing for the re-instatement of privileges, except based on money rather than lineage (although of course, those equate to privileges based on birth-to-rich-parents as well). Off to the guillotine with you ! 
I think there is a difference. If it were purchasing a product, everyone should be charged the same - if Joe Schmoe is able to buy a cheeseburger at McDonald’s for $3, then Bill Gates should only be charged $3 for the same cheeseburger at McD’s too. But since the law and penalties are about deterrence, then the penalties should be somewhat different based off of income (assuming we’re talking only about fines). Since the purpose of the law is to discourage crime, then it takes a much heftier fine to deter Bill Gates from speeding than Joe Schmoe.
I’m having trouble coming up with some offense that are essentially monetary and don’t put others at risk. Can you name some?
If you’re going to suggest that driving 60 in a 55 zone puts others at risk and deserves to be enforced with the threat of incarceration, then there’s no reason to continue discussing this issue, we are at an impasse.
Strange. I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking you for your opinion on which offenses you consider monetary only and don’t put others at risk.
That’s easy, all the ones that carry zero ongoing governmental penalty if you do nothing but write your check on time. Once you accumulate enough points to have your license suspended, you’ve proven yourself a risk to others, and are getting a justified punishment, which can be enforced for public safety purposes.
Take NJ for an example, a low level speeding ticket is 2 points, and suspension is at 12 points, so you need to rack up a few of those before being punished. Except… if you don’t pay the fine, then you get suspended for Failure to Pay even if you only got one ticket. If you get 6 points in a short period of time, you get a Surcharge, a cash payment that, if you don’t pay up, you get suspended.
How about if, instead of a fine, a person caught speeding does 1 - 15 days in jail, as allowed by the NJ laws on speeding?
Indeed, the law does allow some ridiculous results.
Only because you are not bothering to read what I said. If the only thing that you read are the parts that you quote, I can understand your ignorance. While only quoting the part you want to answer is an accepted practice, actually reading the whole post is actually beneficial to your understanding, even if you ignore the questions that are asked of you while you continue to ask more questions that have already been answered, they are still part of the context that you choose to ignore.
Do you lose your license for a single minor traffic ticket? If so, then you may have a point. If not, then you need to justify why I would lose my license over a single traffic ticket in order for your question to make any sense.
Losing a license should be something that you do to someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to follow safe driving practices, not something that you do to someone who who cannot afford a fine.
These are two different things, and I think it is only your desire to see people receive punishment that is confusing you. Try to forget about how much you want to see people punished for their crimes, and try again.
Well, there are some who would say that violent crime should be handled differently from traffic violations.
If someone is violent, then sure, use force to get them to comply with not being violent anymore. If someone is not violent, then using force to may them comply may be excessive. It certainly should not be your first step.
It doesn’t seem that way at all. First of all, if you could get away with not paying minor traffic tickets by being poor, would you quit your job? No, I didn’t think so. You are proposing such a silly scenario here, that the most marginalized populations around have some sort of “privilege” that you don’t get to take a part of. Well, if it is that much of a privilege to not be thrown in jail for the crime of owing the state a couple hundred dollars, then quit your job too.
Driving without insurance is a different one. You are not increasing the risk, but you are increasing the chances that if something happens, you are not able to make other’s whole, but at the same time, do you actually know what most state minimum insurance is? It is not enough to make someone whole, it’d be lucky to cover the most basic medical response and car repair. If not having insurance is your greatest crime, then fining you for not having money to pay insurance improves the situation how, exactly?
Also, no one has said anything like what you are claiming here. You keep talking about “racking up points”, even though I have been specifically talking about a single ticket that you cannot pay.
There are those who are “judgement proof” meaning that you can’t sue them, because they don’t have any assets to sue for. Is that some sort of loophole, in your opinion?
People get into so much debt by purchasing TVs and computers and games and fine dinners that they have to discharge their debts to the public in bankruptcy.
I have never had a lapsed registration, and I have never had a safety check, and my last emissions test was in the 90’s.
Sure, if that is the case for everyone, you included. Up for that deal?