Municipal Violations

[DragonStryk72]

So I noticed that everyone seemed to be mentioning cops, and getting pulled over, and well, I saw a bit on John Oliver that I think may give a new perspective on the issue:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0UjpmT5noto" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Whether you're pro-cop or what, whether you're liberal or conservative, I think we can all be agreed that the current manner in which we handle these things is sort of horrible, and is likely a part of the issue that people are having with police, and police are likely not even fully aware of.

It's the natural response, when you think about it: "Oh, he didn't pay his fines, he should go to jail for that." But what if the person has paid more than $500 of their $135 fine, but is being told they still owe another $500? And this isn't small change, cities are balancing their budgets off this, in some instances even using this set up to keep from having to raise taxes.

I'm a big believer in the point that if you committed a crime, you should face the penalty. However, no one should be making profit off of you, the whole point of the exercise is to fit punishment to the crime, no set you into a cycle that could easily cripple your career and life because you had the sheer, unmitigated gall to not have your seatbelt on.

[Noir]

It's the natural response, when you think about it: "Oh, he didn't pay his fines, he should go to jail for that."

...when actual responses include "he should of just shot the thug and got rid of another criminal."
^,^;

[jimnyc]

Whether you're pro-cop or what, whether you're liberal or conservative, I think we can all be agreed that the current manner in which we handle these things is sort of horrible, and is likely a part of the issue that people are having with police, and police are likely not even fully aware of.

It's the natural response, when you think about it: "Oh, he didn't pay his fines, he should go to jail for that." But what if the person has paid more than $500 of their $135 fine, but is being told they still owe another $500? And this isn't small change, cities are balancing their budgets off this, in some instances even using this set up to keep from having to raise taxes.

I'm a big believer in the point that if you committed a crime, you should face the penalty. However, no one should be making profit off of you, the whole point of the exercise is to fit punishment to the crime, no set you into a cycle that could easily cripple your career and life because you had the sheer, unmitigated gall to not have your seatbelt on.

I believe the charges should remain as charged. Maybe add a nominal fee every few months, but not to break someone, only to get them to pay. If no attempt is made at all, then I'm all for jailing. But that doesn't mean someone should pay $800 for a $135 charge. A lot of these charges are too high to begin with. You'll get popped with $115 for a seat belt violation where I live. The parking tickets are only like $25, but shoot to $75 within 15 days, and then continue in that fashion until you sign over your mortgage!


...when actual responses include "he should of just shot the thug and got rid of another criminal."
^,^;

I don't consider violations = criminal acts. BUT, refusing to pay can lead to it being one...

[gabosaurus]

Municipal violations were a huge force in the Ferguson riots. Police would target people with petty violations, knowing they couldn't pay the fines. The "service charges" would add up and lead to arrests.
The same goes for smaller cities that gain much of their revenue through speed traps and "unusual" municipal violations. In some places, you can be fined for not cutting your grass, having cracks in your driveway or blocking the sidewalk with your vehicle.

[tailfins]

It's cute how it's only a problem when it affect black people. One way individuals can push back is my "every ticket, a contested ticket" policy. Did you know that in Massachusetts, you STILL owe some fees if you get a ticket and are found NOT GUILTY?



Armed with the knowledge that more than 250,000 tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions were challenged in the state last fiscal year, legislators have voted to charge drivers $25 for such hearings. The budget Gov. Deval L. Patrick signed into law this week includes the change, which took effect yesterday, according to Trial Court spokeswoman Joan Kenney.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090702/NEWS/907020697/1116

[DragonStryk72]

I believe the charges should remain as charged. Maybe add a nominal fee every few months, but not to break someone, only to get them to pay. If no attempt is made at all, then I'm all for jailing. But that doesn't mean someone should pay $800 for a $135 charge. A lot of these charges are too high to begin with. You'll get popped with $115 for a seat belt violation where I live. The parking tickets are only like $25, but shoot to $75 within 15 days, and then continue in that fashion until you sign over your mortgage!



I don't consider violations = criminal acts. BUT, refusing to pay can lead to it being one...

Yeah, I don't think there's anyone saying we shouldn't have fines, that's all well and good, but it's a matter of the punishment fitting the crime, and no, forgetting to put your seat belt on shouldn't cost you more than a month's rent to get clear of it. As the one attorney put it in the video, fines need to be fit to ability to pay. If you're unable to pay due to poverty, then community or working it off should be the default options. You still get punished, but you're not worried that you're going to get put in the fuck-barrel.

you could even have it take off as minimum wage, so a $225 fine means you're going to be doing 35 hours of work/community service. You're punished, but at the same time, you know when it's over.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I don't think there's anyone saying we shouldn't have fines, that's all well and good, but it's a matter of the punishment fitting the crime, and no, forgetting to put your seat belt on shouldn't cost you more than a month's rent to get clear of it. As the one attorney put it in the video, fines need to be fit to ability to pay. If you're unable to pay due to poverty, then community or working it off should be the default options. You still get punished, but you're not worried that you're going to get put in the fuck-barrel.

you could even have it take off as minimum wage, so a $225 fine means you're going to be doing 35 hours of work/community service. You're punished, but at the same time, you know when it's over.

The whole punishment meeting the crime thing is 'at times' screwed up in our country. Darren Sharper, retired NFL player - charged with rapes in 4 states. All sentences to run at the same time and he will be out within 9 years. Then you have women that are busted sleeping with 14-17 year old students in school and get 10-50 years in prison. I'm not saying it's right for these women, but the sentences seem a bit skewered. Or someone in NY who gets mandatory 2-5 years in prison for gun crimes, while I've seen major drug dealers walk with less. That's why I hate preset punishments.

[sundaydriver]

It isn't just the fines, court costs, or added fines, it is now fees in 13 states to private companies that are now given free rein to handle the courts verdict

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rise-of-americas-debtor-prisons/