3 ms·

> 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
  >or perhaps jail No. There should never be jail for debt. We have a lot of history seeing what debtors prison looks like and it's ugly, and also stupid because it's the government paying out a lot of money... to collect a bit of money? Usually paying out far more then the fine is anyway. Plus opportunity cost. Plus any value lost to society from whatever that person might have done outside of prison. Plus any extra cost that comes from them getting turned far worse while in prison. If someone has zero money, and will never in the future have any money, then sure blood can't be squeezed from stone and it's still better to write it off (or change the statute to require different recompense like service if it's deemed that important) than jail them. If they do have any money/property, or ever will collect any money/property down the road, that can be taken in due course.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The purpose of fines is to punish someone, not to raise money (except in failed and failing states, of course). Jailing someone who can't or won't pay as a replacement punishment is just common sense.

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
>or perhaps jail No. There should never be jail for debt. We have a lot of history seeing what debtors prison looks like and it's ugly, and also stupid because it's the government paying out a lot of money... to collect a bit of money? Usually paying out far more then the fine is anyway. Plus opportunity cost. Plus any value lost to society from whatever that person might have done outside of prison. Plus any extra cost that comes from them getting turned far worse while in prison. If someone has zero money, and will never in the future have any money, then sure blood can't be squeezed from stone and it's still better to write it off (or change the statute to require different recompense like service if it's deemed that important) than jail them. If they do have any money/property, or ever will collect any money/property down the road, that can be taken in due course.
- anoncake 7y ago
  The purpose of fines is to punish someone, not to raise money (except in failed and failing states, of course). Jailing someone who can't or won't pay as a replacement punishment is just common sense.