13 ms·

>I am lucky. I can pay that. It sucks but some people would be out food money if they suddenly had to pay $500 to drive again. Absolutely, court fees and fines

by goatsi 8y ago

>I am lucky. I can pay that. It sucks but some people would be out food money if they suddenly had to pay $500 to drive again. Absolutely, court fees and fines disproportionately punish those with low incomes. Increasing enforcement of low level violations by surveillance tech and/or AI is going to crush a lot of people if we don't change that fact. https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish-the-poor https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fe... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/municipal-courts-war-on-poor-people-explained/541395/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/municipal-courts-war-...

burfog 8y ago
NOTE: not specifically about jaywalking, but about fines/fees being disproportionate punishment in general Jail disproportionately punishes those who are working. (they lose their income source, then they can't pay bills, then their house gets foreclosed, etc.) Ditching punishment entirely means free-for-all anarchy until somebody takes that opportunity to impose a government with punishments. What options are left? Torture? Execution? Ignoring the masochists and the suicidal, those don't disproportionately punish people.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  This manner of thinking is why we have issues such as black people being disproportionately affected by Marijuana laws or large fines/punishments for relatively benign things such as jaywalking. The way we doll out punishment in America ends up being a slap on the wrist for the rich and wealthy and devasting for the poor and minorities.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, like Anacharsis told to Solon (the lawmaker) in 6 BC Athens: "[Your] laws are no different from spiders' webs. They'll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they'll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth".
    - rarrarrarr 8y ago
      That's a nice quote -- I wasn't familiar with Anacharsis, so I read up on him. For what it's worth, considering he came to Athens in 589 BC[0], I think your date of 6 BC is a little off. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis
      - coldtea 8y ago
        For what it's worth, I meant 6th century BC (seeing that I mentioned Solon et al, and not Romans being around).
        rarrarrarr 8y ago
        Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Have a great day!
- jrockway 8y ago
  In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. For routes that need to be able to move at high speed, you build in grade separation. Jaywalking was just a "growth hack" that needs to be reverted. Society needed fast transportation, and it was developed at any cost. The cost is now too high, so we just roll it back. No torture required....
  - wgerard 8y ago
    > In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. Mmmm I dunno about that. Drivers have minimum reaction times and cars have stopping distances. Giving pedestrians the right-of-way in every situation seems like a recipe for a lot of collisions. It could work, but I think it would involve re-designing countless intersections to provide higher visibility of pedestrians for drivers--not a bad goal, but I think a pretty unfeasible one.
    - nickez 8y ago
      This is how it works in Sweden and I believe we have even fewer road casualties than the US.
      - wgerard 8y ago
        Interesting! I didn't know that. Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc?
        MiddleEndian 8y ago
        To my knowledge, jaywalking is legal in Boston, where I live. The pedestrian is presumed to have the right-of-way.
        wgerard 8y ago
- mikeash 8y ago
  How about we start with what we currently have, then make incremental improvements?
- verall 8y ago
  Fines could be proportional to income and/or wealth. Court fees could be waived for those who paying is a hardship. Bail is already often scaled based on wealth, so this isn't unheard of.
- nabla9 8y ago
  Fines should be some percentage of income. Here in Finland the record speeding ticked is over 100,000 euros. One guy in Switzerland received $1 million speeding ticket for driving his Mercedes SLS AMG over 280 km/h. That's how hit should be.
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    Scaling fines up to higher incomes for things that don't really matter (jaywalking, minor traffic violations) seems antithetical to the individualistic core of American culture. We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. When it comes to crimes like that, you want to absolutely lower the ceiling for the few as well, and scaling fines is the way to do it.
    - nabla9 8y ago
      Fixed percentage equalizes the disincentive. The goal of fine is discourage. The same fine for all relative to income provides more equal discouragement.
    - CJefferson 8y ago
      Depends what you think the fines are for. If they are to discourage behaviour, it makes sense to me to try to make them equally discouraging to everyone, which requires scaling.
      - nitrogen 8y ago
        The time spent while pulled over is a pretty big discouragement to everyone. Time cost scales with wealth. But victimless "crimes" don't need punitive discouragement the way other harmful activities might. Jaywalking, speeding, turning right from the left lane, these things happen hundreds of times a day in a city, and spottily enforced huge fines are not likely to address whatever societal harm these activities might cause. There are probably better ways to spread and encourage the small social norms that allow society to function. Leave large fines for large harm.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the point. But I suspect that’s intentional. If you really think this, please do some reading on the subject of how court fees and small-scale civil violations and all the consequences of those things can lead to a vicious cycle of financial destruction for families on the edge of economic self sufficiency.
  - burfog 8y ago
    I'm not misunderstanding it. I'm saying there is no good solution here. Feel free to propose a punishment that isn't disproportionate to somebody. I don't think such a punishment exists, aside from crazy edge cases like "do not enforce the law". Go ahead. Try to make a suggestion that won't punish some people more than others. In case it makes you feel any better about the system of fines, we can say that the disproportionate impact is itself a punishment for the lifestyle choices that lead to being poor. OK, that is awful, but it's some sort of justification.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - retsibsi 8y ago
      Arguing over fairness may be a dead end. But what about the practical question of incentives? How can a flat fine provide a significant disincentive to the very rich (without being so high that it would completely wipe out the average person)?
askvictor 8y ago
Finland, I believe, scales fines proportionally to your income. Not perfect (the rich can more easily hide their income than the not so rich), but a good start.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  I think if it scales to a maximum amount its fine especially for driving related violations. For example nobody needs to be paying 25 grand for a speeding violation thats absurd regardless of income. But its interesting. I believe in Mexico its based on your hourly wage and x amount of hours. So if you have no job and you get a ticket you owe nothing, at least thats how it was when my sister got a ticket in Guadalajara in '07.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Sounds like you need a minimum too then...
  - cocoa19 8y ago
    It's not based in hourly wage, it's based on daily minimum wage. If you have no job, you still get a ticket, unless the police officer let's you off the hook or you bribe him (which is very common). I'm not condoning bribing police officers.
  - arrrg 8y ago
    Why is that absurd? Can you explain that? I was searching for reasons, but didn’t find any.
- asmosoinio 8y ago
  Yes - a well-known example was Anssi Vanjoki (former Nokia director) getting a fine of 116,000 euros for driving 75 km/h in a 50 zone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm I have heard of other countries that have similar systems.
  - justAnotherNET 8y ago
kakarot 8y ago
Isn't socioeconomic oppression kind of the point of all this, though? It's not just the implementation of the justice system that needs correction; it's working exactly as designed. We have to change the entire design, not the little implementation details.

by goatsi 8y ago

burfog 8y ago

NOTE: not specifically about jaywalking, but about fines/fees being disproportionate punishment in general Jail disproportionately punishes those who are working. (they lose their income source, then they can't pay bills, then their house gets foreclosed, etc.) Ditching punishment entirely means free-for-all anarchy until somebody takes that opportunity to impose a government with punishments. What options are left? Torture? Execution? Ignoring the masochists and the suicidal, those don't disproportionately punish people.

fzeroracer 8y ago
This manner of thinking is why we have issues such as black people being disproportionately affected by Marijuana laws or large fines/punishments for relatively benign things such as jaywalking. The way we doll out punishment in America ends up being a slap on the wrist for the rich and wealthy and devasting for the poor and minorities.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, like Anacharsis told to Solon (the lawmaker) in 6 BC Athens: "[Your] laws are no different from spiders' webs. They'll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they'll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth".
  - rarrarrarr 8y ago
    That's a nice quote -- I wasn't familiar with Anacharsis, so I read up on him. For what it's worth, considering he came to Athens in 589 BC[0], I think your date of 6 BC is a little off. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis
    - coldtea 8y ago
      For what it's worth, I meant 6th century BC (seeing that I mentioned Solon et al, and not Romans being around).
      - rarrarrarr 8y ago
        Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Have a great day!
jrockway 8y ago
In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. For routes that need to be able to move at high speed, you build in grade separation. Jaywalking was just a "growth hack" that needs to be reverted. Society needed fast transportation, and it was developed at any cost. The cost is now too high, so we just roll it back. No torture required....
- wgerard 8y ago
  > In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. Mmmm I dunno about that. Drivers have minimum reaction times and cars have stopping distances. Giving pedestrians the right-of-way in every situation seems like a recipe for a lot of collisions. It could work, but I think it would involve re-designing countless intersections to provide higher visibility of pedestrians for drivers--not a bad goal, but I think a pretty unfeasible one.
  - nickez 8y ago
    This is how it works in Sweden and I believe we have even fewer road casualties than the US.
    - wgerard 8y ago
      Interesting! I didn't know that. Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc?
      - MiddleEndian 8y ago
        To my knowledge, jaywalking is legal in Boston, where I live. The pedestrian is presumed to have the right-of-way.
        wgerard 8y ago
mikeash 8y ago
How about we start with what we currently have, then make incremental improvements?
verall 8y ago
Fines could be proportional to income and/or wealth. Court fees could be waived for those who paying is a hardship. Bail is already often scaled based on wealth, so this isn't unheard of.
nabla9 8y ago
Fines should be some percentage of income. Here in Finland the record speeding ticked is over 100,000 euros. One guy in Switzerland received $1 million speeding ticket for driving his Mercedes SLS AMG over 280 km/h. That's how hit should be.
- nitrogen 8y ago
  Scaling fines up to higher incomes for things that don't really matter (jaywalking, minor traffic violations) seems antithetical to the individualistic core of American culture. We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. When it comes to crimes like that, you want to absolutely lower the ceiling for the few as well, and scaling fines is the way to do it.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    Fixed percentage equalizes the disincentive. The goal of fine is discourage. The same fine for all relative to income provides more equal discouragement.
  - CJefferson 8y ago
    Depends what you think the fines are for. If they are to discourage behaviour, it makes sense to me to try to make them equally discouraging to everyone, which requires scaling.
    - nitrogen 8y ago
      The time spent while pulled over is a pretty big discouragement to everyone. Time cost scales with wealth. But victimless "crimes" don't need punitive discouragement the way other harmful activities might. Jaywalking, speeding, turning right from the left lane, these things happen hundreds of times a day in a city, and spottily enforced huge fines are not likely to address whatever societal harm these activities might cause. There are probably better ways to spread and encourage the small social norms that allow society to function. Leave large fines for large harm.
skywhopper 8y ago
You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the point. But I suspect that’s intentional. If you really think this, please do some reading on the subject of how court fees and small-scale civil violations and all the consequences of those things can lead to a vicious cycle of financial destruction for families on the edge of economic self sufficiency.
- burfog 8y ago
  I'm not misunderstanding it. I'm saying there is no good solution here. Feel free to propose a punishment that isn't disproportionate to somebody. I don't think such a punishment exists, aside from crazy edge cases like "do not enforce the law". Go ahead. Try to make a suggestion that won't punish some people more than others. In case it makes you feel any better about the system of fines, we can say that the disproportionate impact is itself a punishment for the lifestyle choices that lead to being poor. OK, that is awful, but it's some sort of justification.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    Arguing over fairness may be a dead end. But what about the practical question of incentives? How can a flat fine provide a significant disincentive to the very rich (without being so high that it would completely wipe out the average person)?

askvictor 8y ago

Finland, I believe, scales fines proportionally to your income. Not perfect (the rich can more easily hide their income than the not so rich), but a good start.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
I think if it scales to a maximum amount its fine especially for driving related violations. For example nobody needs to be paying 25 grand for a speeding violation thats absurd regardless of income. But its interesting. I believe in Mexico its based on your hourly wage and x amount of hours. So if you have no job and you get a ticket you owe nothing, at least thats how it was when my sister got a ticket in Guadalajara in '07.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Sounds like you need a minimum too then...
- cocoa19 8y ago
  It's not based in hourly wage, it's based on daily minimum wage. If you have no job, you still get a ticket, unless the police officer let's you off the hook or you bribe him (which is very common). I'm not condoning bribing police officers.
- arrrg 8y ago
  Why is that absurd? Can you explain that? I was searching for reasons, but didn’t find any.
asmosoinio 8y ago
Yes - a well-known example was Anssi Vanjoki (former Nokia director) getting a fine of 116,000 euros for driving 75 km/h in a 50 zone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm I have heard of other countries that have similar systems.
- justAnotherNET 8y ago

kakarot 8y ago

Isn't socioeconomic oppression kind of the point of all this, though? It's not just the implementation of the justice system that needs correction; it's working exactly as designed. We have to change the entire design, not the little implementation details.