5 ms·

> personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. Ok, but that's not actually what a fine is for. It's

> personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. Ok, but that's not actually what a fine is for. It's meant to be a deterrent against future offenses, both by the party it's levied against and for others.[1] 1. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html

leetcrew 7y ago
> The purposes of imposing a criminal fine are to punish the offender, help compensate the state for the offense, and deter any future criminal acts. looks like the source you cited supports both perspectives.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  So then you agree that the goals of "punish the offender" and "deter any future criminal acts" would not be served by having the same fine amount for everyone, regardless of means?
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    yes, but I personally don't think that's a good goal for a fine. generally speaking, there are two kinds of offenses: those that hurt people, and those that don't necessarily harm, but expose to excess risk. if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra. if you hurt someone seriously, some jail time might be in order. but I think excess risk is better handled through liability. there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. tbh, I don't actually support speeding tickets in the first place, at least not on the highway. people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat. I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.
    - jogjayr 7y ago
      > there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident? It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up. > if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth. > people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities. > I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc. I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space. 1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        there are two major problems with the document you linked. > NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket! the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it. [0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184c9fb0cc7ee21056b67789/?vgnextoid=40c85f5b262bff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...

leetcrew 7y ago

> The purposes of imposing a criminal fine are to punish the offender, help compensate the state for the offense, and deter any future criminal acts. looks like the source you cited supports both perspectives.

jogjayr 7y ago
So then you agree that the goals of "punish the offender" and "deter any future criminal acts" would not be served by having the same fine amount for everyone, regardless of means?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  yes, but I personally don't think that's a good goal for a fine. generally speaking, there are two kinds of offenses: those that hurt people, and those that don't necessarily harm, but expose to excess risk. if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra. if you hurt someone seriously, some jail time might be in order. but I think excess risk is better handled through liability. there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. tbh, I don't actually support speeding tickets in the first place, at least not on the highway. people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat. I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    > there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone. So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident? It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up. > if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth. > people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities. > I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc. I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space. 1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      there are two major problems with the document you linked. > NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket! the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?" given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it. [0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184c9fb0cc7ee21056b67789/?vgnextoid=40c85f5b262bff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...