3 ms·

> Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved Most people in the US would, therefore, be extremely incentivised to stay within the law then? If you want fi

by dazc 5y ago

> Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved Most people in the US would, therefore, be extremely incentivised to stay within the law then? If you want financial penalties to be affordable then you get where we are now with offenders accepting the odd fine as part of the game. I agree with the means test based fine concept but I would make the consequences equally life changing.

giantg2 5y ago
Well, if that's your opinion, then my opinion is that I'm glad you aren't a leader. The law should provide a punishment that disincentivises bad behavior. But openly advocating for "life changing" penalties for some minor infraction like speeding is inappropriate. Should we then be executing people for misdemeanors so that the weighting is proportionate for other offenses? If you can't pay the fine, then they might put you in jail, starting a loop where you can't find work and dance never pay. If you make minor, often unintentional traffic offenses oppressively punished with "life changing" penalties, then you can actually have the opposite effect. If I know it's an all or nothing penalty then I might as well go all out in my offense. If I don't have money to pay, then what do I actually lose - the punishment changed basically nothing (aside from the removal of hope/potential which leads to additional crime). Do you drive? If you don't, then perhaps there is bias in your opinion. If you do, do you really think you've never violated any law or regulation? Have you read all of the statutes and regulations?
- dazc 5y ago
  I'm looking at driving behaviour in isolation to most other crimes and misdemeanors because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner. If a large fine is going to hurt you then you have a simple choice and the correct choice has no negative consequences to you whatsoever, unless reaching the next stop sign a few seconds earlier is that important to you. Yes I do drive and I don't claim to be always perfect but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner." That depends on how you define dangerous and anti social. What if I exceed the speed limit when driving to a hospital in an emergency? Is 5 mph over the speed limit "dangerous" enough to fit the definition? What mitigating factors do you think exist for other crimes that don't exist for these. "but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner." Now we're getting to the meat of the discussion. So you're only talking about willful violations. That could be hard to prove. You claim that you're not perfect, but that you also don't drive dangerously? So we need to know what defines "dangerously". There's a good chance your unwilling behavior does constitute dangerous behavior. On top of all this, reckless driving and reckless endangerment are offenses that carry stiff penalties in most places. In many places, these are misdemeanors and result in possible jail time, license revocation/suspension, re-education, and fines. If we already have these then why apply them to minor or even deminimus offenses?
    - dazc 5y ago
      I think you're over complicating things. I don't know what the definition of 'going over the limit' is in the US but in the UK it is 10% plus 2mph. This leaves plenty of leeway for your emergency dash to the hospital at 5mph over the limit and the occasional lapse of concentration. I concede that you do already have severe penalties for reckless driving but they are not rigorously enforced except for extreme outlying cases and/or where a serious collision has resulted. And, I think, this is where the true solution may be found since more rigid enforcement of existing laws may actually be enough to deter all but the most determined of miscreants.

by dazc 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

Well, if that's your opinion, then my opinion is that I'm glad you aren't a leader. The law should provide a punishment that disincentivises bad behavior. But openly advocating for "life changing" penalties for some minor infraction like speeding is inappropriate. Should we then be executing people for misdemeanors so that the weighting is proportionate for other offenses? If you can't pay the fine, then they might put you in jail, starting a loop where you can't find work and dance never pay. If you make minor, often unintentional traffic offenses oppressively punished with "life changing" penalties, then you can actually have the opposite effect. If I know it's an all or nothing penalty then I might as well go all out in my offense. If I don't have money to pay, then what do I actually lose - the punishment changed basically nothing (aside from the removal of hope/potential which leads to additional crime). Do you drive? If you don't, then perhaps there is bias in your opinion. If you do, do you really think you've never violated any law or regulation? Have you read all of the statutes and regulations?

dazc 5y ago
I'm looking at driving behaviour in isolation to most other crimes and misdemeanors because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner. If a large fine is going to hurt you then you have a simple choice and the correct choice has no negative consequences to you whatsoever, unless reaching the next stop sign a few seconds earlier is that important to you. Yes I do drive and I don't claim to be always perfect but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner." That depends on how you define dangerous and anti social. What if I exceed the speed limit when driving to a hospital in an emergency? Is 5 mph over the speed limit "dangerous" enough to fit the definition? What mitigating factors do you think exist for other crimes that don't exist for these. "but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner." Now we're getting to the meat of the discussion. So you're only talking about willful violations. That could be hard to prove. You claim that you're not perfect, but that you also don't drive dangerously? So we need to know what defines "dangerously". There's a good chance your unwilling behavior does constitute dangerous behavior. On top of all this, reckless driving and reckless endangerment are offenses that carry stiff penalties in most places. In many places, these are misdemeanors and result in possible jail time, license revocation/suspension, re-education, and fines. If we already have these then why apply them to minor or even deminimus offenses?
  - dazc 5y ago
    I think you're over complicating things. I don't know what the definition of 'going over the limit' is in the US but in the UK it is 10% plus 2mph. This leaves plenty of leeway for your emergency dash to the hospital at 5mph over the limit and the occasional lapse of concentration. I concede that you do already have severe penalties for reckless driving but they are not rigorously enforced except for extreme outlying cases and/or where a serious collision has resulted. And, I think, this is where the true solution may be found since more rigid enforcement of existing laws may actually be enough to deter all but the most determined of miscreants.