3 ms·

Fines levied against anyone/any corporation ought to go into a fund that is divided up in some manner independent of any individual jurisdiction's propensity to

Fines levied against anyone/any corporation ought to go into a fund that is divided up in some manner independent of any individual jurisdiction's propensity to levy them. The problem with allowing a municipality to enforce laws and then profit from that enforcement is the obvious incentive to optimize on revenue instead of the public good. Let's pretend that all fines from red light cameras had to be divided up among 100 municipalities. The free rider "problem" would kick in. Why bother to purchase expensive cameras when you only see on cent per dollar in fines? Only at the most problematic intersection would one find such devices. I would believe claims that law enforcement was for the public good if those entities doing the enforcing did not profit significantly from their propensity to enforce.

eru 17y ago
Why do not lobby for legislation that allows you to drive over a red light? Instead of arguing indirectly against applying that law.
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  Because I don't like people who run red lights. I've gone so far as to chase them down, knock on their windows, and ask them why they were trying to kill me. If the motive for enforcement is not profit, then the overall revenue derived from enforcement would not change if the distribution method became more indirect. If my suggestion changed behavior, it is sufficient proof that governments' motives are not pure.
  - eru 17y ago
    There's nothing wrong with providing incentives for local governments to enforce the rules.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      There is, however, something wrong with providing incentives for local governments to manipulate rules to turn people into criminals, particularly when those manipulations actually make driving (in this case) more dangerous. Seriously -- do you not see the potential danger in giving local government an incentive to shorten yellow lights just to catch more people in a ticketable offense?
    - ShabbyDoo 17y ago
      One problem (of many) is that there are so many laws that everyone probably breaks a few every day. Did you cross the street to talk to your neighbor? Jaywalking. $50 fine. So, a system of laws has been created that allows local governments to almost arbitrarily tax their citizens at will simply by choosing which laws to enforce. I believe there are restrictions on the work that prisoners can be forced to do because there's a fine line between incarceration as punishment and enslavement. If the government has an incentive to incarcerate, it will seek to find ways to acquire more prisoners. I see this as a parallel to fine collection. All of my comments in this thread are US-centric, obviously.
      - eru 17y ago
        Perhaps we change the underlying laws? Not enforcing unjust laws seems a second best.
mmt 17y ago
Better yet, make it revenue-neutral, perhaps by paying money to those found not guilty. After all, even if revenue gets split up, there's still a moral hazard.

eru 17y ago

Why do not lobby for legislation that allows you to drive over a red light? Instead of arguing indirectly against applying that law.

ShabbyDoo 17y ago
Because I don't like people who run red lights. I've gone so far as to chase them down, knock on their windows, and ask them why they were trying to kill me. If the motive for enforcement is not profit, then the overall revenue derived from enforcement would not change if the distribution method became more indirect. If my suggestion changed behavior, it is sufficient proof that governments' motives are not pure.
- eru 17y ago
  There's nothing wrong with providing incentives for local governments to enforce the rules.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    There is, however, something wrong with providing incentives for local governments to manipulate rules to turn people into criminals, particularly when those manipulations actually make driving (in this case) more dangerous. Seriously -- do you not see the potential danger in giving local government an incentive to shorten yellow lights just to catch more people in a ticketable offense?
  - ShabbyDoo 17y ago
    One problem (of many) is that there are so many laws that everyone probably breaks a few every day. Did you cross the street to talk to your neighbor? Jaywalking. $50 fine. So, a system of laws has been created that allows local governments to almost arbitrarily tax their citizens at will simply by choosing which laws to enforce. I believe there are restrictions on the work that prisoners can be forced to do because there's a fine line between incarceration as punishment and enslavement. If the government has an incentive to incarcerate, it will seek to find ways to acquire more prisoners. I see this as a parallel to fine collection. All of my comments in this thread are US-centric, obviously.
    - eru 17y ago
      Perhaps we change the underlying laws? Not enforcing unjust laws seems a second best.

mmt 17y ago

Better yet, make it revenue-neutral, perhaps by paying money to those found not guilty. After all, even if revenue gets split up, there's still a moral hazard.