3 ms·

This seems expensive, inefficient and destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty. I'd rather my taxes cover the true cost of the court system and the courts

This seems expensive, inefficient and destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty. I'd rather my taxes cover the true cost of the court system and the courts focus on reforming individuals rather than cost recovery.

fnimick 12y ago
Expensive and inefficient for society, great for those who profit from the poor. Of course they're trying to trap people in a cycle of poverty - what's better than having customers who can't escape?
tomjen3 12y ago
Personally I would tend to agree with you, except I want the money to be used to discurage crime in the first place - by making it much harder to be a criminal. I don't feel an ounce of pity for those who have to pay for their ancle bracelets. I do agree that you shouldn't go to prison just for not paying your court fees, but if you drive drunk or sell drugs on the street I am not crying for you.
ctdonath 12y ago
destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty. Only if those people persist in committing crimes.
- socialist_coder 12y ago
  It doesn't seem like you understand. This privatization is creating a cycle that is contributing to people being repeat offenders. So yes, "only if these people persist in committing crimes", but the government is making it harder on them to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    The $free alternative of incarceration remains, independent of whether costly alternatives exist. Alas, human nature is such that making it easy "to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime" decreases the incentive to do so. The main point of sentencing is to discourage recidivism. I'm concerned about a subculture normalizing crimes, 1st or subsequent. Objecting to punishment with zero consideration of the cause thereof facilitates the underlying problem.
    - mfringel 12y ago
      Alas, human nature is such that making it easy "to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime" decreases the incentive to do so. [citation needed]
    - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
      I worry more about subcultures having their normal criminalized e.g. the drugs those people do need to be punished severely. This goes back to prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan supporting it to antagonise Irish Catholics.
      - socialist_coder 12y ago
        This is already happening with crack vs coke, but I assume you know that =)
    - socialist_coder 12y ago
      It's not easy to get your life back to together. It's very difficult already. These offenders are punished enough already, society should not be making it more difficult.
swayvil 12y ago
The key word here is "defenseless". Add "criminal" to that and they lose the protection of society too. There's nothing keeping us from grinding them to pink slime on an optimized exploitation curve. They die at 35.

fnimick 12y ago

Expensive and inefficient for society, great for those who profit from the poor. Of course they're trying to trap people in a cycle of poverty - what's better than having customers who can't escape?

tomjen3 12y ago

Personally I would tend to agree with you, except I want the money to be used to discurage crime in the first place - by making it much harder to be a criminal. I don't feel an ounce of pity for those who have to pay for their ancle bracelets. I do agree that you shouldn't go to prison just for not paying your court fees, but if you drive drunk or sell drugs on the street I am not crying for you.

ctdonath 12y ago

destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty. Only if those people persist in committing crimes.

socialist_coder 12y ago
It doesn't seem like you understand. This privatization is creating a cycle that is contributing to people being repeat offenders. So yes, "only if these people persist in committing crimes", but the government is making it harder on them to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  The $free alternative of incarceration remains, independent of whether costly alternatives exist. Alas, human nature is such that making it easy "to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime" decreases the incentive to do so. The main point of sentencing is to discourage recidivism. I'm concerned about a subculture normalizing crimes, 1st or subsequent. Objecting to punishment with zero consideration of the cause thereof facilitates the underlying problem.
  - mfringel 12y ago
    Alas, human nature is such that making it easy "to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime" decreases the incentive to do so. [citation needed]
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    I worry more about subcultures having their normal criminalized e.g. the drugs those people do need to be punished severely. This goes back to prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan supporting it to antagonise Irish Catholics.
    - socialist_coder 12y ago
      This is already happening with crack vs coke, but I assume you know that =)
  - socialist_coder 12y ago
    It's not easy to get your life back to together. It's very difficult already. These offenders are punished enough already, society should not be making it more difficult.

swayvil 12y ago

The key word here is "defenseless". Add "criminal" to that and they lose the protection of society too. There's nothing keeping us from grinding them to pink slime on an optimized exploitation curve. They die at 35.