2 ms·
>seems like it would lessen the incentive to ticket to generate lots of revenue. That still doesn't align the incentives. It just shifts the focus from quantit
by fr0sty 11y ago
>seems like it would lessen the incentive to ticket to generate lots of revenue.
That still doesn't align the incentives. It just shifts the focus from quantity of stops to quality of stops (the correlation between vehicle cost and yearly income is very stong).
Law enforcement should not be about generating revenue. Full stop.
- jfoutz 11y agoThis feels like the "Perfect solution fallacy". Fines are effective. Governments are going to do something with the money. Picking a price curve that closely matches actual cost of running the department seems better than what we do now. Yes, officers will have a preference for pulling over a ferarri instead of some beat up old honda, but with all of the automation the article talked about, it seems like the times an officer has a choice between the two are rare. If the policy is pull over everyone breaking the law, officers would have to account for not pulling over cheap cars. Now, i could see a good argument for simply requiring public service from everyone. The thing we're all limited by is time. 10 hours of a rich guy's time is just as valuable as 10 hours of a poor guy's time (to them at least). Of course, you're not really proposing this as an alternative, you appear to be saying because it's not perfect, it's not worth doing.
- fr0sty 11y agoI guess my point is that unless you change the monetary beneficiary of the traffic fines you retain perverse incentives even if you try to make the costs more equitable.