The issue, for me, is that it assumes that this CEO's "worth" in getting to work late is something I care about.
I care about the people who are picking up bottles out of the snow outside my window right now.
I agree this won't go anywhere.
That rich guy was hurrying to a meeting to close the deal on a new factory that would offer sweet jobs and benefits to all those picking up bottles outside your window.
Look, all I'm saying is that the "net economic effect" argument swings both ways. The rich guy's time is worth more, economically speaking, and there for he has more right to be speeding in the first place. If we're going to apply economic analysis to sentencing, maybe we should apply to law enforcement as well. The reason I say "this won't go anywhere" is the same reason I say that we ought not be focusing on money as a way to enforce things.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
Why not? If we're using "economic effect" to judge how justice is done.
Yar on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
If this dude is such a repeat offender that it's obvious he doesnt give two fucks about the consequences then maybe it is appropriate to up them consequences.
If this is a judge getting revenge because the dude fucked his wife, or if they're trying to raise money to repave the court's basketball....ummm.... court, then no this is not appropriate.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
Why not? If we're using "economic effect" to judge how justice is done.
That's a pretty perverse system of judgment when you're working with people.
Anything can be looked at through a lens - You can analyze literature with a Freudian methodology.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
Why not? If we're using "economic effect" to judge how justice is done.
The issue is that your "economic effect" benefits and places emphasis of importance on the wealthy.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
Why not? If we're using "economic effect" to judge how justice is done.
Because your version of "economic effect" is overly broad and holistic in a "we're all connected, man" sorta way, where as what I've read the "economic effect" is a tool to get self important d bags to stop speeding.
There used to be a common speed trap between Stanford University and highway 280. Basically, there used to be a place where you'get off of the 65 mph freeway, onto a 45 mph thoroughfare and then suddenly the speed limit dropped to 25 mph with very little warning. The police would pull people over who were slowing down to accommodate the new speed limit but hadn't braked enough to get to 25 by the time the 25 zone started.
In Sacramento, there used to be a stretch of freeway shared by I-80W and US-50W. If you were going west on 80, the last speed limit sign you would see before you hit that stretch was 65mph. If you were going west on 50, though, the last sign you would see said 55mph. There was a good couple miles before there was another speed limit sign once you hit that shared stretch (which was 55mph). So as best I could tell, the legal speed limit for that stretch of freeway depended on where you came from.
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I said I "initially" thought this was a good idea because I then changed my mind. I started thinking about traffic fines and fines in general, and then I started considering: in America at least (not sure about the situation in other countries) there is a certain problem of police setting up speed traps as a revenue stream, which seems like a messed-up incentive to me.
Don't speed = trap becomes worthless. I hate when people bitch about cops trapping them. If you weren't doing something illegal, you wouldn't be "trapped".
What I hate are people who whine that police officers do patrol things that bring in revenue (speeding, seat belts, etc) rather than handling "real" crimes.
As if real crimes cost absolutely no money to handle.
I think dealing with things like speeding violations in non-monetary ways would make it a lot easier to make sure violators feel the repercussions of their actions on at least the same order of magnitude. If we're going to stick with money, it seems like a flat fee is an imbalanced way of doing things. A crippling fine for someone in one tax bracket is a drop in the ocean for someone in another.
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
You can do income based on an average of the last three tax years. You can do wealth exempting a single primary residence.
This doesn't make it a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't really a reason we couldn't do it.
I think dealing with things like speeding violations in non-monetary ways would make it a lot easier to make sure violators feel the repercussions of their actions on at least the same order of magnitude. If we're going to stick with money, it seems like a flat fee is an imbalanced way of doing things. A crippling fine for someone in one tax bracket is a drop in the ocean for someone in another.
Financial fines are good - you can't stop people driving (loads of people drive without licenses), but you can hit them in the wallet. And you can hit them in the wallet as a % of their annual income, which is a sharpish lesson.
I am thinking, though, that even assuming you wanted to try scaled fines you'd probably want to limit it to more serious offenses. You don't exactly want to go through the trouble of compiling financial data on every dude that gets popped for 5 over, but for 20+ over, DUI, driving on a suspended license, or multiple offenses it might be worth the trouble.
EDIT: This has the added benefit of nullifying a lot of the arguments regarding speed traps and what not, because most of those aren't generating tickets for grievous offenses (usually 5-10 over, or rolling stops).
I am thinking, though, that even assuming you wanted to try scaled fines you'd probably want to limit it to more serious offenses. You don't exactly want to go through the trouble of compiling financial data on every dude that gets popped for 5 over, but for 20+ over, DUI, driving on a suspended license, or multiple offenses it might be worth the trouble.
EDIT: This has the added benefit of nullifying a lot of the arguments regarding speed traps and what not, because most of those aren't generating tickets for grievous offenses (usually 5-10 over, or rolling stops).
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
You can do income based on an average of the last three tax years. You can do wealth exempting a single primary residence.
This doesn't make it a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't really a reason we couldn't do it.
No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where someone in a non-standard situation gets fucked with a ridiculous fine. I think this is a worse situation than the super-rich having to speed a couple extra times before they get a serious punishment.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
You can do income based on an average of the last three tax years. You can do wealth exempting a single primary residence.
This doesn't make it a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't really a reason we couldn't do it.
No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where someone in a non-standard situation gets fucked with a ridiculous fine. I think this is a worse situation than the super-rich having to speed a couple extra times before they get a serious punishment.
If you want to take a utilitarian approach, I think the standard system screws over many more people with "excessive" fines than a scaling model would, including the odd fuckup which is, essentially, going to happen regardless.
And again, anyone paying a lawyer to fight a traffic ticket is an idiot. There's no way you're saving money, you're just being a dick.
Or wealthy.
People don't get wealthy by pissing away money. You'd have to do something really egregious for your ticket to be more expensive than a lawyer, in which case you probably need a lawyer.
Lawyering up for a speeding ticket is only done by idiots.
I got a $124 ticket for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign on a bicycle.
It's easy to get tickets that cost more than lawyers.
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 8 pages but I'm too lazy to read or come up with an appropriate search. In Colorado we have a point system for our license and even if a low fine doesn't hurt a rich person financially having their license taken away after their 3rd or 4th speeding ticket in some amount of time would be a decent disincentive. This would also prevent cops from profiling rich people/cars to raise money.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
Failing to show an ID or give a verifiable name to a cop for any reason will get you a quick trip down to the police station, where you will be held until they can verify who you are, and ask some rather pressing questions to you as to the reasons why you were trying to hide your identity.
Edit: Hell, I had a friend get taken down to the station because his birthday that he gave didn't match up with the one that they had (he was adopted and had always used his date of adoption as his DOB, but his drivers license was in his birth date). They let him go after about 20 minutes once they figured out what happened, but falsifying identity to cops isn't something you want to mess around with.
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
You can do income based on an average of the last three tax years. You can do wealth exempting a single primary residence.
This doesn't make it a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't really a reason we couldn't do it.
No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where someone in a non-standard situation gets fucked with a ridiculous fine. I think this is a worse situation than the super-rich having to speed a couple extra times before they get a serious punishment.
Don't we already have gigantic financial bureaucracies designed to semi-accurately assess net worth and yearly income? If you're in some weird situation where you make $25,000 a year but the IRS thinks you make $2,500,000 a year, you have bigger problems than disproportionate tickets.
Not to mention you can always argue your case in court. "Your honor, I can't pay $250,000 for a speeding ticket because I make one fifth of that in a year!" The system already allows for objections, arguments, and appeals.
What possible realistic scenario could exist for someone being dramatically harmed by income-adjusted fines?
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
I should have given a fake name.
While on the topic of "should haves," there was a bike trial with those metal posts preventing cars from getting through right next to me when I got pulled over, heh.
I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 8 pages but I'm too lazy to read or come up with an appropriate search. In Colorado we have a point system for our license and even if a low fine doesn't hurt a rich person financially having their license taken away after their 3rd or 4th speeding ticket in some amount of time would be a decent disincentive. This would also prevent cops from profiling rich people/cars to raise money.
This is everything wrong with America.
Also, your handle just wept.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 8 pages but I'm too lazy to read or come up with an appropriate search. In Colorado we have a point system for our license and even if a low fine doesn't hurt a rich person financially having their license taken away after their 3rd or 4th speeding ticket in some amount of time would be a decent disincentive. This would also prevent cops from profiling rich people/cars to raise money.
This is everything wrong with America.
Also, your handle just wept.
I don't see why anyone ought to be profiled. I love taking rich people's money for taxes but I'd rather the police stop bleeding all people for cash in the name of public safety instead of singling out the rich.
EDIT DUECE: Curse you matt, with your skills of quoting me!
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 8 pages but I'm too lazy to read or come up with an appropriate search. In Colorado we have a point system for our license and even if a low fine doesn't hurt a rich person financially having their license taken away after their 3rd or 4th speeding ticket in some amount of time would be a decent disincentive. This would also prevent cops from profiling rich people/cars to raise money.
This is everything wrong with America.
Also, your handle just wept.
I don't see why anyone ought to be profiled. I love taking rich people's money for taxes but I'd rather the police stop bleeding all people for cash in the name of public safety instead of singling out the rich.
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
What... what happnes if you give some random name and refuse to show ID? Like, I'm sure someone's tried that... will they detain you until they can verify your identity?
Yes, and then charge you with giving false information.
matt has a problem on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
What... what happnes if you give some random name and refuse to show ID? Like, I'm sure someone's tried that... will they detain you until they can verify your identity?
Why would you give them a fake name? That is stupid. Do you think it's unreasonable for a police officer to be suspicious of someone giving a fake name and wanting to find out why they did that and who they are?
haha, i got one of those bicycle tickets too. I was able to get it thrown out just by talking to the judge, though, i didn't need a lawyer.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
What... what happnes if you give some random name and refuse to show ID? Like, I'm sure someone's tried that... will they detain you until they can verify your identity?
Why would you give them a fake name? That is stupid. Do you think it's unreasonable for a police officer to be suspicious of someone giving a fake name and wanting to find out why they did that and who they are?
Is it unreasonable to give a rolling stop ticket to someone on a bicycle?
Posts
Fair =/= just.
That kind of "pragmatic" approach, when applied to other issues, opens some dangerous doors. Your lack of foresight to wake up early in the morning does not excuse you nor does it give you the right to endanger other people and break the law, especially if that law is fair.
The ends do not justify the means.
If this is a judge getting revenge because the dude fucked his wife, or if they're trying to raise money to repave the court's basketball....ummm.... court, then no this is not appropriate.
That's a pretty perverse system of judgment when you're working with people.
Anything can be looked at through a lens - You can analyze literature with a Freudian methodology.
It doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
The issue is that your "economic effect" benefits and places emphasis of importance on the wealthy.
I think they have plenty of emphasis.
Because your version of "economic effect" is overly broad and holistic in a "we're all connected, man" sorta way, where as what I've read the "economic effect" is a tool to get self important d bags to stop speeding.
No, you slap someone with a six-figure speeding ticket precisely because they're rich.
I'd have more sympathy if corporate politics weren't just a thinly veiled form of racketeering.
In Sacramento, there used to be a stretch of freeway shared by I-80W and US-50W. If you were going west on 80, the last speed limit sign you would see before you hit that stretch was 65mph. If you were going west on 50, though, the last sign you would see said 55mph. There was a good couple miles before there was another speed limit sign once you hit that shared stretch (which was 55mph). So as best I could tell, the legal speed limit for that stretch of freeway depended on where you came from.
As to a scaling fine, I think it presents a very real problem in which whatever formula they use to calculate it could dramatically over-estimate how much money you actually have. If it's based on income, will it be bumped up due to that one-time, rather large bonus you just got? If it's based on wealth, is it going to be super-high because, even though you have a modest income and not a ton of money, the house you bought 40 years ago has appreciated into multi-million-dollar territory?
Like Speaker suggested, I think using a set fine amount but punishing repeat offenders with non-monetary punishments works well enough.
What I hate are people who whine that police officers do patrol things that bring in revenue (speeding, seat belts, etc) rather than handling "real" crimes.
As if real crimes cost absolutely no money to handle.
They aren't slapping them with a six figure speeding ticket because they're rich. Math is.
The free market is.
Now are we square?
It's charging what the market can bear. The man wishes to avoid prison, so the state is charging him what he'll pay to avoid it. Perfect capitalism.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You can do income based on an average of the last three tax years. You can do wealth exempting a single primary residence.
This doesn't make it a good idea, I'm just saying this isn't really a reason we couldn't do it.
Financial fines are good - you can't stop people driving (loads of people drive without licenses), but you can hit them in the wallet. And you can hit them in the wallet as a % of their annual income, which is a sharpish lesson.
EDIT: This has the added benefit of nullifying a lot of the arguments regarding speed traps and what not, because most of those aren't generating tickets for grievous offenses (usually 5-10 over, or rolling stops).
you could just add it onto their income taxes
No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where someone in a non-standard situation gets fucked with a ridiculous fine. I think this is a worse situation than the super-rich having to speed a couple extra times before they get a serious punishment.
If you want to take a utilitarian approach, I think the standard system screws over many more people with "excessive" fines than a scaling model would, including the odd fuckup which is, essentially, going to happen regardless.
I got a $124 ticket for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign on a bicycle.
It's easy to get tickets that cost more than lawyers.
I was wondering what would have happened if i just refused to show the cop my ID. I mean, why should I need a driver's lisence to ride a bike? and how can he give me a ticket without knowing my name?
While you aren't required to show your license, you are required to give your name, they can look you up that way.
I should have given a fake name.
Failing to show an ID or give a verifiable name to a cop for any reason will get you a quick trip down to the police station, where you will be held until they can verify who you are, and ask some rather pressing questions to you as to the reasons why you were trying to hide your identity.
Edit: Hell, I had a friend get taken down to the station because his birthday that he gave didn't match up with the one that they had (he was adopted and had always used his date of adoption as his DOB, but his drivers license was in his birth date). They let him go after about 20 minutes once they figured out what happened, but falsifying identity to cops isn't something you want to mess around with.
Don't we already have gigantic financial bureaucracies designed to semi-accurately assess net worth and yearly income? If you're in some weird situation where you make $25,000 a year but the IRS thinks you make $2,500,000 a year, you have bigger problems than disproportionate tickets.
Not to mention you can always argue your case in court. "Your honor, I can't pay $250,000 for a speeding ticket because I make one fifth of that in a year!" The system already allows for objections, arguments, and appeals.
What possible realistic scenario could exist for someone being dramatically harmed by income-adjusted fines?
While on the topic of "should haves," there was a bike trial with those metal posts preventing cars from getting through right next to me when I got pulled over, heh.
This is everything wrong with America.
Also, your handle just wept.
I don't see why anyone ought to be profiled. I love taking rich people's money for taxes but I'd rather the police stop bleeding all people for cash in the name of public safety instead of singling out the rich.
EDIT DUECE: Curse you matt, with your skills of quoting me!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'd rather just single out the rich.
Why would you give them a fake name? That is stupid. Do you think it's unreasonable for a police officer to be suspicious of someone giving a fake name and wanting to find out why they did that and who they are?
Is it unreasonable to give a rolling stop ticket to someone on a bicycle?