4 ms·

> If it's unpaid traffic tickets, then I do think it makes sense to suspend the license In a society as car dependent as ours, this is tantamount to a loose ho

> If it's unpaid traffic tickets, then I do think it makes sense to suspend the license In a society as car dependent as ours, this is tantamount to a loose house arrest sentence, and worth noting that it still falls in exactly the same way as your original point about how outrageously stupid it is to levy fines and then interfere with someone's ability to earn due to failure to pay those fines. Not to mention, in that aforementioned society, you can't not drive. So of course these people are driving illegally, and then they can be cited for that which will give a fresh case for yet more fines, more fees, and more court dates for them to miss. And before you say "well it should prevent people from breaking traffic laws!" there is in fact a wide body of evidence showing that stiffer punishments for any crime does extremely precious little to affect the rate of offense. No, it's quite clear these laws are designed to turn poor people into a steady revenue source for the cities and counties that have budgets to balance, same as it always was. It's a perfect solution: they have fewer resources to fight the tickets or the unfair circumstances, their low position in society means nobody gives a shit about them, they usually can't afford legal representation, they'll have a harder time making court dates and paying balances, and as such, municipalities get to drown them in all kinds of bullshit fees and charges, and if they still fail to pay, then they get to throw them in prison to boot. Another set of hands to work in the only method we have for legal slavery these days. This practice is fucking grotesque.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
I agree for the most part. A single traffic ticket, even unpaid, should not result in severe punishments. No loss of license, no jailtime, no additional fines, etc. It is too likely to escalate someone's existing financial problems. Would you say the same for repeat offenders? A traffic ticket that does not carry the risk of a compounding punishment might as well not exist. I can agree with ignoring one traffic ticket, but I do think a "three strikes and you're out" rule should be in place to prevent people from taking advantage of the system's leniency.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  The system doesn't have to be lenient because we want to be nice to the repeat offenders, the system has to be lenient because the infrastructure of our country is built on the presumption of everyone owning a car. Mass transit in the states is largely a fucking joke once you leave one of the major metropolitan areas (and hell, even in them depending which city we're talking). Like, I cannot overstate, as someone who lives in a smaller town in rural Wisconsin, you can't live without a car here. We have a bus service, sure. The schedule sucks and it basically takes 90 minutes minimum to get to anywhere from anywhere if you want to use it. Cycling is just straight impossible for about 5 months out of the year, and the rest of the time you have to cross roads that are not designed for bike traffic, next to drivers who are notorious for not paying attention to pedestrians, or even other cars for that matter. Like, let's say the worst case scenario is true: you have this person who is willfully bucking traffic laws on the regular, for some reason that we are not privy to. They just won't stop. Okay? What do you want to do about it? Do we imprison them for a completely non-violent offense? Do we just continue fining them? Do we take away their right to drive, and make them functionally immobile, and also completely still capable of driving illegally?

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

I agree for the most part. A single traffic ticket, even unpaid, should not result in severe punishments. No loss of license, no jailtime, no additional fines, etc. It is too likely to escalate someone's existing financial problems. Would you say the same for repeat offenders? A traffic ticket that does not carry the risk of a compounding punishment might as well not exist. I can agree with ignoring one traffic ticket, but I do think a "three strikes and you're out" rule should be in place to prevent people from taking advantage of the system's leniency.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
The system doesn't have to be lenient because we want to be nice to the repeat offenders, the system has to be lenient because the infrastructure of our country is built on the presumption of everyone owning a car. Mass transit in the states is largely a fucking joke once you leave one of the major metropolitan areas (and hell, even in them depending which city we're talking). Like, I cannot overstate, as someone who lives in a smaller town in rural Wisconsin, you can't live without a car here. We have a bus service, sure. The schedule sucks and it basically takes 90 minutes minimum to get to anywhere from anywhere if you want to use it. Cycling is just straight impossible for about 5 months out of the year, and the rest of the time you have to cross roads that are not designed for bike traffic, next to drivers who are notorious for not paying attention to pedestrians, or even other cars for that matter. Like, let's say the worst case scenario is true: you have this person who is willfully bucking traffic laws on the regular, for some reason that we are not privy to. They just won't stop. Okay? What do you want to do about it? Do we imprison them for a completely non-violent offense? Do we just continue fining them? Do we take away their right to drive, and make them functionally immobile, and also completely still capable of driving illegally?