No. I like the fine or jail idea myself. I can afford to pay the fine. Can’t afford the fine? Then go to jail. I’d be okay with the either/or but not both. Let the person who committed the infraction decide.
What’s wrong with that?
I want to see some sort of repercussions for not following the law.
Do you realize that this is exactly the thing that is being argued against. Where people who “can afford” stuff don’t go to jail and people who “can’t afford” do go to jail. For doing the exact same thing.
Because, and let’s be crystal clear about this, the infraction itself doesn’t justify a jail sentence, because the State is perfectly happy with a bit of cash instead. But you’re sending people to jail over it, because they’re not wealthy.
If that were the case, a jail penalty wouldn’t have been written into the law.
I say it DOES justify a jail sentence. Which is my opinion, same as yours.
Yeah, that’s the advantage of having money. I thought that was obvious. There MUST be a way for poor people to avoid fines or jail time for speeding. Perhaps a solution will come to me eventually.
Call me crazy, but I like to pretend that the point of punishments for crimes is deterrence. If the “advantage of having money” is that rich people aren’t deterred, or aren’t deterred to a comparable level, then I’d say that the punishment system is fucked by definition.
This, again, presumes that the goal is deterrence. If the goal is something else (like if the goal is to oppress the poor for shits and giggles), then the system could be argued as working fine.
Let me guess:
They should have been born to richer parents?
They should buy more money?
They should stop being so poor?
I think it’s the last one. Hell, the Republicans have been trying and trying for years to make being poor just as effing miserable as possible, and these jerks just keep on choosing to be poor. Can’t they take a hint and start being rich, or something?
Well, I had a rough draft of a theory that was something like “Don’t speed”, but I like yours as well.
I’d be fine with percentage of income based fines for minor infractions.
I think it would be even better to factor in things like estimated monthly expenses - after a point you get people who can comfortably lose 50% or more of a month’s income without blinking while other people would experience systemic life collapse losing 5%. But those are just details; on the face of it we have something approaching agreement! On the internet! :eek:
Disproportionate punishment. You are fine with someone who is poorer than you being punished much more harshly than yourself for the same infraction.
As Shodan has said, a deterrence needs to be a punishment that hurts. If you are okay with paying a fine, then it’s not really a deterrence to you, now is it?
If you are fine with someone else being locked up for going 2mph over the speed limit, then you should be fine with yourself being locked up for the same.
Otherwise, you are just claiming that you are wealthy enough that you can ignore the consequences of your actions. That having money makes you above the law.
Tell you what, since you are not capable of understand the concept of “for the grace of God, there go I”, lets say that it is a fine or time in prison, except the fine for going 3 mph over the limit is $500,000, or 1-15 days in jail. Now that you cannot afford the fine as well, do you still feel that you should be locked up for a speeding ticket that you cannot pay?
You live near DC, which means that I assume you have seen the beltway during rush hour? I’ve driven through there a few times, and nearly every one of the cars on the road is breaking the law. Do you want to see repercussions for all of these drivers, or you just want to see repercussions for the ones that the police decide to pull over, or you just want to see repercussions for the ones that the police pull over, and don’t have the resources to avoid any repercussions? Be consistent here, but keep in mind, that it is only the last group that you will actually see having repercussions.
So, you desire to see people punished. I get that, and it is a common sentiment, one that we struggled with as we became civilized. The code of Hammurabi: “An eye for an eye” was not meant as a way of meeting out punishment, but as a way of limiting it. Before that, if you cost someone an eye, they’d murder your whole family, because that is the sort of savages that we are, we wanted to see some sort of repercussions.
We have improved that eye for an eye mentality as we have improved civilization, but we have not entirely eliminated that bit that wants to see people punished. It is the basis of religious belief where people rejoice at the idea that those who have not led a righteous path will be tortured for an eternity in a lake of fire.
Compared to the punishments that we have been giving out for most of history, I will agree that a fine that you cannot afford to pay is actually much more civilized then the savagery of the past.
The question is, however, is not whether the punishments are better than they were in the past, but whether we can do better than now. Should we improve our civilization, or let it fester?
Keep in mind that poverty is actually the basic human condition. The vast majority of all people who have ever lived have lived lives of extreme poverty. We have fewer poor now, and civilization has improved due to that.
Your visceral need to see others suffer for their sins is common, but has fortunately been prioritized in the minds of most as being below that of having a just and fair society. There are those who take our society for granted, and believe that they have actually been deserving of everything they have received, and so heap scorn upon those who have received less, as they feel that means they deserve everything that they have received. People seem to think that having money makes them better than those who do not. It doesn’t.
Let’s see. If I knew the fine for going 3 mph over the speed limit is $500,000 or some other amount that I couldn’t afford to pay, I would make DAMN sure that I never went 3 mph over the speed limit. You know, because I can’t afford the consequences of doing so. Seems simple to me.
There are numerous ways to avoid being pulled over on the Beltway. But a person who gets pulled over should be responsible for whatever the crime is. It’s not hard.
If you have kids, and you’ve never punished them for anything, then I will accept your sincerity in these statements. If not, then I doubt you really believe this.
Speaking only on the speeding issue, Bill Gates would still not be able to speed with impunity as that would result in his getting his license revoked.
Ultimately this comes down to respect of the law. If you are poor and GO TO COURT, they will do 1 of about 3 things:
- Offer you some sort of payment plan
- Offer you alternative methods of paying it off (community service)
- Cut the fine imposed
Now, if you fail to obey the request to show up for a hearing, THEN they issue a warrant and if picked up after, you go to jail… (So that you actually show up for court)
All of this but the poor and but the rich when it comes to which laws you can and can not break is ridiculous.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the concept is “equal protection”, not “fair”.
Let’s make this somewhat generic. Let’s say that punishment for going 3mph over the limit (speeding) is something that you (and a fair number of people like you) are simply incapable of dealing with. Others, the majority of people in society, can easily deal with this punishment, it represents to them little more than fodder for an amusing anecdote.
You are forced to white knuckle your way down the highway being tailgated, honked at and yelled at for being a slowpoke. Multiply this experience by a dozen different things you have to deal with the same way because society just LOVES this method of punishment, it’s so simple to administer, whatever it is.
What I say is that this punishment isn’t fair to you, because you must live your life in a highly restrictive way that others do not.
If the tax burden was divided equally and everyone(no matter what their income was) had to pay, say, $14,000-would that be equal, or would that be fair?
For one, if I wanted to, I could drive the actual speed limit on the Beltway in the far right lane, and nobody would be honking or tailgating. And that is what I would do if I was incapable of dealing with the punishment for speeding. That’s why I don’t go 100 MPH on the Beltway now. I don’t want to get arrested and my car impounded.
For two, life isn’t fair. Some people get treated better than me, some people get treated worse. The concept of “fairness” in life isn’t one that I concern myself with when the treatment is a result of a person’s own actions.
Well, good for you, then. That makes you the only person who doesn’t speed. Or make an improper lane change, or not stop for quite long enough at a stop sign, or making a rolling right on red. Or, you know, just do something (like drive a beater car)that attracts the attention of a cop until they find some excuse to pull you over.
Keep in mind, if you are driving a BMW or Cadillac, you get to drive several mph faster than someone driving a '77 Delta 88 without getting puled over by the police.
I agree, I just feel that we should revisit “whatever the crime is”, and the punishment imposed to be more proportional to what it is, a minor moving violation.
If you have kids, and you throw them out in the snow to die for not cleaning their room, then I will accept your sincerity in these statements. If not, then I really doubt you believe this. You do realize that I never said that there should be no punishment, just that the effective punishment should be proportional to the crime, right? You are making an accusation as to my sincerity based on your extremely poor understanding of my argument. You’d look more sincere if you actually responded to what I post, rather than whatever you make up.
I will tell you that I do have employees, and my discipline is aimed at improving their performance, not decreasing or eliminating it. I have fired people for discipline reasons, but it is the very last resort. I am never looking for reasons to fire people, never looking for reasons to punish them. I do the least amount necessary to keep them productive and behaving properly.
I could have an arbitrary discipline system, that imposed draconian punishments on my employees for the slightest infraction, and it is possible that some of my employees will manage to toe the line well enough to not get fired. That’s going to harm over all morale, and make it hard to staff my establishment.
Just like a parent, or an employer, the govt has a responsibility over its citizens to try to guide them on the right path, but it also has a responsibility to not destroy them for setting a foot astray.
But, as I said, wise social policy has to compete with people’s visceral need to see other people punished, so it will always be a compromise. I will continue to advocate for wise social policy, and I assume that you will continue to advocate for punishment, and we may find a compromise somewhere in the middle.
You really think that Bill Gates would even go to court? He’d have a lawyer contest it, and never hear about it ever again. Especially over some of this penny-ante shit that cops like to pull poor people over for. You think Bill Gates is going to actually get a fine for an improper lane change?
In the very unlikely event that he were actually to lose his license over rampant speeding, do you think that he may have some alternate transport lined up?
Keep in mind of course, that an employer does not need to give time off for someone to go to court. If you have a hearing date, and your employer says you are fired if you are not at work that day, which would you choose?
I’m not sure, but it sounds as though you are claiming that a speeding ticket effects the wealthy and the poor the same. No one ever said that you can break laws, only that the effects of the punishments should be proportional to the crime.
The rephrasing of the desire to prevent people’s lives from being destroyed over minor infractions into “which laws you can and can not break” is ridiculous.
How often do you check that your brake lights aren’t out? How long do you stop at a deserted stop sign before continuing? How many reminders do you put on when you park at a meter, so you don’t accidentally go over time? You better clean the hell out of your sidewalks come winter, wouldn’t want a ticket for that, either.
“Life isn’t fair” isn’t justification for knowingly making it less fair, or never trying to make it more fair.
Good thing I didn’t say I never do those things. Perhaps you should respond to what I type, and not to things you make up that I’m saying? I’m saying that if the fine for speeding was $500,000, I would never, ever speed. Seems easy enough to me. I don’t HAVE to exceed the speed limit. It’s not a biological imperative or anything.
Do you take into account their monthly incomes and expenses when you decide what discipline you inflict on them?
Of course it doesn’t effect the wealthy and poor the same. Only that the means to avoid it are equal to the wealthy and poor alike. And I already said I’d be fine with income-proportional fines for things like this.
I’ve been on the beltway, and that is simply not true. I was doing about 10 over, and still being tailgated.
You know you can also get a ticket if you are obstructing traffic, even if you are going the speed limit, right?
Of course life is not fair. You certainly don’t deserve the things that you have received, and nor do the poor, and nor do the wealthy. You position in life has very, very little to do with the results of your own actions. Wealth is distributed fairly randomly, nothing fair about it. We used to murder each other over slights, and get eaten by wild animals. We died young from disease, and starvation has killed as many as wars have.
So, yeah, the basic state of life is not fair, but it is far fairer than it was a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years ago. I believe that that is a direction that we should continue to head in, to continue to make life more fair. YMMV.