4 ms·

I know some will balk out of fear and comfort, but we are approaching a boundary that will force these schemes to expand into the socio-economic strata that you

by wahsd 12y ago

I know some will balk out of fear and comfort, but we are approaching a boundary that will force these schemes to expand into the socio-economic strata that you also belong to. Sure it's easy to ignore the brewing storm because it's at the horizon, but what happens when the government and the corrupt officials find that they have sucked the poor and down-trodden dry and their revenue streams are atrophying. Let's see, you speed, well we need to make sure that you are not a serial speeder and need to monitor you for an increasing number of months at a cost of $100 per month for equipment and services. Let's see...what else? You drink.... you've been drunk in public. Well we need to make sure you are not doing illegal things while you are drunk so we need to monitor you for an ever expanding number of months.

ctdonath 12y ago
The alternative is incarceration; would you rather that be mandatory? Crimes were committed (whether what was committed should be a crime is a different discussion), incarceration is the normal punishment and means of ensuring the crime (nor others) is not repeated within a given period of time. Thanks to technology & private services, we can give the convicted an option which prevents/discourages recidivism within that period, but otherwise lets them largely return to freedom. Being costs above and beyond what the jurisdiction has budgeted (on the represented will of the people), either let the convicted opt for paying for the means for that freedom, or take the free route of being locked in a box for a prolonged period. Sure there are issues subject to objection in this, but remember: the alternative is dump these options and just incarcerate. BTW, PSA: an out-of-state driver in NY caught speeding can be subjected to an additional >$300 "safe driving assurance" (or some rot) fee, paid to ensure said driver is not arrested outright next time discovered (for any reason) driving in the state. No 3rd-party services/mechanisms involved, just straight-up legal extortion which, per the lead article's premise, hits the poor harder than the better-off.
- yasth 12y ago
  The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead of 3 days for public intox it might be a year of ankle monitoring at $350 a month, and because the city wants the year to look attractive they either take away the incarceration option or increase the sentence. So the very poor get incarcerated for longer, and the less poor end up with a fairly massive chunk out of their income. Also because the city isn't paying they have a lessened interest in reducing the fees. If you look close you can see some hidden pernicious issues with it. Fundamentally it means that the state can be really mean to the poor and not impact the better off. Penalties that one can buy their way out of can even to an extent encourage lawbreaking.
- scarmig 12y ago
  The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance. If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
swayvil 12y ago
A sample of Southern IL justice : Speeding ticket. Want to keep it off your mandatory insurance so your rates don't go up? We have an online school where you can learn to not be a speeder. It'll cost you a couple hundred on top of the fine and administration fees.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  My understanding is that you actually SAVE a ton of money in the long run by keeping it off your driving record. So I don't see it being in the same class of predatory practices outlined in the original article.
  - swayvil 12y ago
    It's a close cousin of what we see in the article. When the system that rips me off daily offers me the option to get ripped off in a small way to avoid getting ripped off in a big way, I don't feel like I'm really SAVEing.
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      I don't think it's a close cousin at all. Making you pay a fee to take a class that they spent resources putting together and administering is quite different than the private companies in the article who are just shafting the poor and using that as a sales tactic to implant themselves deeper into local governments. Also note that you can get away with taking the anti-speeding class only once. It's a one-time deal they offer you, mostly as a warning. It's not a continuous stream of revenue for the party administering the fee.
      - wahsd 12y ago
        If you have ever taken one of those courses, whether brick and mortar or online, you will understand that it's simply a con job that the driving school industry has pushed through. If the intent were really to penalize and disincentivize then punishment would need to be relative, e.g., your speeding ticket would need to be a percentage of your last annual income.
ctdonath 12y ago
Don't speed to excess. Don't drink to excess. Given so many do, I'm unsurprised governments seek to increase enforcement & stakes, given limited resources. (malum prohibitum a separate issue.)

by wahsd 12y ago

ctdonath 12y ago

The alternative is incarceration; would you rather that be mandatory? Crimes were committed (whether what was committed should be a crime is a different discussion), incarceration is the normal punishment and means of ensuring the crime (nor others) is not repeated within a given period of time. Thanks to technology & private services, we can give the convicted an option which prevents/discourages recidivism within that period, but otherwise lets them largely return to freedom. Being costs above and beyond what the jurisdiction has budgeted (on the represented will of the people), either let the convicted opt for paying for the means for that freedom, or take the free route of being locked in a box for a prolonged period. Sure there are issues subject to objection in this, but remember: the alternative is dump these options and just incarcerate. BTW, PSA: an out-of-state driver in NY caught speeding can be subjected to an additional >$300 "safe driving assurance" (or some rot) fee, paid to ensure said driver is not arrested outright next time discovered (for any reason) driving in the state. No 3rd-party services/mechanisms involved, just straight-up legal extortion which, per the lead article's premise, hits the poor harder than the better-off.

yasth 12y ago
The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead of 3 days for public intox it might be a year of ankle monitoring at $350 a month, and because the city wants the year to look attractive they either take away the incarceration option or increase the sentence. So the very poor get incarcerated for longer, and the less poor end up with a fairly massive chunk out of their income. Also because the city isn't paying they have a lessened interest in reducing the fees. If you look close you can see some hidden pernicious issues with it. Fundamentally it means that the state can be really mean to the poor and not impact the better off. Penalties that one can buy their way out of can even to an extent encourage lawbreaking.
scarmig 12y ago
The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance. If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

swayvil 12y ago

A sample of Southern IL justice : Speeding ticket. Want to keep it off your mandatory insurance so your rates don't go up? We have an online school where you can learn to not be a speeder. It'll cost you a couple hundred on top of the fine and administration fees.

enraged_camel 12y ago
My understanding is that you actually SAVE a ton of money in the long run by keeping it off your driving record. So I don't see it being in the same class of predatory practices outlined in the original article.
- swayvil 12y ago
  It's a close cousin of what we see in the article. When the system that rips me off daily offers me the option to get ripped off in a small way to avoid getting ripped off in a big way, I don't feel like I'm really SAVEing.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    I don't think it's a close cousin at all. Making you pay a fee to take a class that they spent resources putting together and administering is quite different than the private companies in the article who are just shafting the poor and using that as a sales tactic to implant themselves deeper into local governments. Also note that you can get away with taking the anti-speeding class only once. It's a one-time deal they offer you, mostly as a warning. It's not a continuous stream of revenue for the party administering the fee.
    - wahsd 12y ago
      If you have ever taken one of those courses, whether brick and mortar or online, you will understand that it's simply a con job that the driving school industry has pushed through. If the intent were really to penalize and disincentivize then punishment would need to be relative, e.g., your speeding ticket would need to be a percentage of your last annual income.

ctdonath 12y ago

Don't speed to excess. Don't drink to excess. Given so many do, I'm unsurprised governments seek to increase enforcement & stakes, given limited resources. (malum prohibitum a separate issue.)