6 ms·

Punitive fines and fees are bad. Abuse of civil forfeiture is worse. But worse still are a minority of towns that not only are dependent on punitive fines, but

by btilly 7y ago

Punitive fines and fees are bad. Abuse of civil forfeiture is worse. But worse still are a minority of towns that not only are dependent on punitive fines, but that levy them in a racially biased way. See https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-f... for an explanation of how this helped ignite the racial tension that Ferguson had a few years ago.

DanBC 7y ago
Here's a short BBC radio programme about St Louis County, and it covers the same sort of thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm > This edition of Crossing Continents goes out and about in St Louis County to meet the people who say they are victims of a system which sees arrest warrants issued for relatively minor misdemeanours. Many of the victims are poor and black. The programme also takes us into the courts, and out onto the freeways with some of the County's police, who say they are upholding the law and promoting road safety. > The US government is not so sure. One of the towns in question is Ferguson where riots erupted after a white police officer shot a young black man dead last summer. In a recent report on the riots, the Department of Justice concluded that the Ferguson police had been stopping people for no good reason. It said they were putting revenue before public safety.
oconnor663 7y ago
This seems like a huge problem. At the same time, it's easier to point out that it's a huge problem than to suggest a solution that doesn't have bad side effects. If the courts don't enforce the laws somehow, the worst repeat offenders end up seriously abusing their neighbors with no consequences. Replacing fines with time-consuming punishments like mandatory community service would be problematic, because low income folks often have little flexibility in their working hours, and getting fired from a job is even worse at a low level of income than it is for everyone else. It might be that just lowering the size of fines would help some, but it seems like a fine that couldn't hurt anyone also effectively punishes no one. Maybe there's a middle ground where fines are punishing for repeat offenders, but ordinary folks who show up in court get a few slaps on the wrist before fines kick in? Are some of the laws already structured like this?
frittig 7y ago
> and then arresting people when they don't pay [the fine]. So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine?
- xoa 7y ago
  >So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine? Just go through the process of taking the money instead, no different then a civil party who was owed a legitimate debt? There is no reason a fine should be any different. Just go through the standard process, get a court order for lien, and then just seize the money from any bank accounts, liquid assets, salary, or property of any value the person in question has (or ever will have in the future up to the statute of limitations). In fact the only real difference is that I don't think a fine is dischargeable in bankruptcy. But why do you think there is any need to use force against the person in question, or pay to imprison them? It's not some moral issue, it's just a matter of them legitimately owing money. So just take the money (possibly allowing the working out of a payment plan). For the vast majority of cases that's all that's needed, and the few who truly live as hermits can be written off and suffer their own effective punishment anyway.
  - frittig 7y ago
    ya, I guess that makes sense. Thanks for being the first person to explain it to me like that.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Depending on the reason, anything from additional fines, commuting the sentence to community service, or perhaps jail. There's a big difference between someone not paying a fine because their flat-out broke and not paying it because "fuck the system, I'm above the law." Zero-Tolerance and One-Size-Fits-All policies are destructively stupid and result in bad outcomes. Context matters in a system of jurisprudence, but ignoring it makes the lives of those implementing and managing them easier though, which is probably the point.
  - xoa 7y ago
southphillyman 7y ago
Yea this was the "elephant in the room" as I read this article. Even if the budgetary requirements necessitate that you pull a ton of people over regardless of race, I imagine the instances where probable cause requires you to pull an individual out of the car for a search are heavily biased.
ErotemeObelus 7y ago
Pressing charges on black people to extract revenue from them is stealing.

by btilly 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

Here's a short BBC radio programme about St Louis County, and it covers the same sort of thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm > This edition of Crossing Continents goes out and about in St Louis County to meet the people who say they are victims of a system which sees arrest warrants issued for relatively minor misdemeanours. Many of the victims are poor and black. The programme also takes us into the courts, and out onto the freeways with some of the County's police, who say they are upholding the law and promoting road safety. > The US government is not so sure. One of the towns in question is Ferguson where riots erupted after a white police officer shot a young black man dead last summer. In a recent report on the riots, the Department of Justice concluded that the Ferguson police had been stopping people for no good reason. It said they were putting revenue before public safety.

oconnor663 7y ago

This seems like a huge problem. At the same time, it's easier to point out that it's a huge problem than to suggest a solution that doesn't have bad side effects. If the courts don't enforce the laws somehow, the worst repeat offenders end up seriously abusing their neighbors with no consequences. Replacing fines with time-consuming punishments like mandatory community service would be problematic, because low income folks often have little flexibility in their working hours, and getting fired from a job is even worse at a low level of income than it is for everyone else. It might be that just lowering the size of fines would help some, but it seems like a fine that couldn't hurt anyone also effectively punishes no one. Maybe there's a middle ground where fines are punishing for repeat offenders, but ordinary folks who show up in court get a few slaps on the wrist before fines kick in? Are some of the laws already structured like this?

frittig 7y ago

> and then arresting people when they don't pay [the fine]. So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine?

xoa 7y ago
>So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine? Just go through the process of taking the money instead, no different then a civil party who was owed a legitimate debt? There is no reason a fine should be any different. Just go through the standard process, get a court order for lien, and then just seize the money from any bank accounts, liquid assets, salary, or property of any value the person in question has (or ever will have in the future up to the statute of limitations). In fact the only real difference is that I don't think a fine is dischargeable in bankruptcy. But why do you think there is any need to use force against the person in question, or pay to imprison them? It's not some moral issue, it's just a matter of them legitimately owing money. So just take the money (possibly allowing the working out of a payment plan). For the vast majority of cases that's all that's needed, and the few who truly live as hermits can be written off and suffer their own effective punishment anyway.
- frittig 7y ago
  ya, I guess that makes sense. Thanks for being the first person to explain it to me like that.
mieseratte 7y ago
Depending on the reason, anything from additional fines, commuting the sentence to community service, or perhaps jail. There's a big difference between someone not paying a fine because their flat-out broke and not paying it because "fuck the system, I'm above the law." Zero-Tolerance and One-Size-Fits-All policies are destructively stupid and result in bad outcomes. Context matters in a system of jurisprudence, but ignoring it makes the lives of those implementing and managing them easier though, which is probably the point.
- xoa 7y ago

southphillyman 7y ago

Yea this was the "elephant in the room" as I read this article. Even if the budgetary requirements necessitate that you pull a ton of people over regardless of race, I imagine the instances where probable cause requires you to pull an individual out of the car for a search are heavily biased.

ErotemeObelus 7y ago

Pressing charges on black people to extract revenue from them is stealing.