Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Ancalagon, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:29 PM.
I think you need a bit of leeway... motive, was there an actual injury vs the threat vs the weapon type. No argument he needs a time out, but if you keep him that long he'll just be back in six months for the remainder of his days.
repeats, well... I did a big chunk between 17-19. It might have been comparatively harsh compared to a kid with a stable home or whatever, but not unreasonable. Thing is after that I've only had minor pot possessions-and yeah, more than three. Is that really worth tying up the penal system over?
it does tend to throw off the opponent's confidence though.
This is what decriminalization will become @Amaris . This is why I do not believe in decriminalization, and I would not even use that term because it ends up still being criminal.
I dealt with this with my car. I get a moving violation which carries a fine and no jail time. If I don't bother with it because it is just a fine it becomes a misdemeanor crime because I did not pay my fine. So a violation turns into a crime. Today places do it better. If I do not pay my fee I cannot get my car registered. When they find me my car gets arrested and impounded and to get it out of jail I need to pay my fine. If I cannot pay it off the car gets auctioned and I lose, but I do not have a criminal record.
The criminal record becomes a problem. A suspended driver's license can be fixed, but the misdemeanor or felony becomes a way for society to label me so I cannot get a job, or I can only get a much lower paying job. Most courts will drop the misdemeanor for not showing up for a ticket to a violation when you finally get to court. This may be different if you are black, but it seems like they just want you to show up. If they kept the criminal charge there it would effect you getting a job.
This is why I think decriminalization is just another attempt to keep the black community on the receiving end of a criminal record while they let off white people with enough money to pay the fines which ends up being a form of bribery for the town. Hey, pay the fine and give our town money and we will let this all go. If you cannot afford the bribe we will make it a crime and label you as a criminal. Who is going to get hit harder by that? In the end that gives rich people the ability to do crimes and not get a record.
Just make things like drugs legal and punish any crimes done on drugs. If you want to do something like a hate crime where you you can add the charge to an actual criminal charge to make it somewhat worse if you do a crime on drugs, then let us talk about that. But decriminalization is just a step to continue racist and classist for crimes we made to punish blacks.
Putting people in prison causes more crime.
Well then obviously we should never put anyone in prison ever again.
now, I'm pretty sure the US hasn't multiplied by ten in under 50 years, so why the increased incarceration rate?
Or maybe...just maybe...we should be re-thinking how many people we're throwing in the can and why.... hmmm?
We definitely should decriminalize most drug offenses and work towards treatment, not punishment, as a public health concern. That would get rid of the majority of our inmates.
And we need to get rid of for profit prison.
We should also toughen white collar crime and bribery laws IMO. They hurt far more people than street crime.
But violent crime is still violent crime, and that needs to be studied very carefully before we make any major changes.
And along with it the knowledge that any mistakes made there will be heavily politicized.
For example, the woman that believed her mother and cousins killer that he was innocent, wrote every year to his parole board to free him, gave him a job working for her, and then he murdered her. This was in Arkansas, last year.
A regular speeding ticket has a $20 fine and $191 costs. Costs are set by Montgomery, so don't even start complaining about that.
$211 can be a substantial portion of a pay check for many. It may deter reoffense for them. But, do you think Bezos cares about a $211 ticket? So, what's the punishment for him when the goal is to deter and prevent reoffense? It has to be fair and equitable to everyone.
Day fines address this, and are worth considering. Our criminal justice system has very apparent inequality and disparities, and day fines could help address some (but not all) of these issues.
once again, those whacky Scandinavians figured it out...
Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman, was recently caught going 65 miles per hour in a 50 zone in his home country—an offense that would typically come with a fine of a couple hundred dollars, at most, in the U.S. But after Finnish police pulled Kuisla over, they pinged a federal taxpayer database to determine his income, consulted their handbook, and arrived at the amount that he was required to pay: €54,000.
The fine was so extreme because in Finland, some traffic fines, as well as fines for shoplifting and violating securities-exchange laws, are assessed based on earnings—and Kuisla's declared income was €6.5 million per year. Exorbitant fines like this are infrequent, but not unheard of: In 2002, a Nokia executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle, and the NHL player Teemu Selanne incurred a $39,000 fine two years earlier.
“This is no constitutionally governed state,” one Finn who was fined nearly $50,000 moaned to The Wall Street Journal, “This is a land of rhinos!” Outrage among the rich—especially nonsensical, safari-invoking outrage—might be a sign that something fair is at work.
Finland’s system for calculating fines is relatively simple: It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two—the resulting number is considered a reasonable amount of spending money to deprive the offender of. Then, based on the severity of the crime, the system has rules for how many days the offender must go without that money. Going about 15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12 days, and going 25 mph over carries a 22-day multiplier.
Most reckless drivers pay between €30 and €50 per day, for a total of about €400 or €500. Finland’s maximum multiplier is 120 days, but there's no ceiling on the fines themselves—the fine is taken as a constant proportion of income whether you make €80,000 a year or €800,000.
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland also have some sliding-scale fines, or “day-fines,” in place, but in America, flat-rate fines are the norm. Since the late 80s, when day-fines were first seriously tested in the U.S., they have remained unusual and even exotic.
But to advocate for the American adoption of day-fines isn’t to engage in the standard grass-is-greener worship of Scandinavia that’s in style right now. It’s logical. Yes, day-fines might dissuade the rich from breaking the law; after all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money, and Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates.
But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded.
“There’s a renewed interest in this because of the outrageous kind of fining and gouging that has become well-known out of Ferguson,” says Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization. “But of course that kind of stuff goes on everywhere.” Greene says that day-fines won't curb the troubling practice of aggressive, means-to-an-end fining, but it would be effective to introduce them anyway. “Then the criminal fines should come into the picture as they were originally intended, which is a criminal sanction—a penalty for crime—and then scaled appropriately,” she says.
Greene has seen America's experience with day-fines firsthand. Nearly 30 years ago, she helped launch a pilot program in Staten Island. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island’s fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and Greene went on to work with a few other cities in implementing the day-fine idea. All of these initiatives, she says, were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people.
So why did it fail to catch on? “The fine as a sanction back then was not seen as tough enough, the focus back then being ‘lock ‘em up,’” Greene says. “There wasn’t a lot of room for an intermediate sanction,” she says. But now that concerns about over-incarceration are much more salient, things might be different. “We have a new climate, in terms of public attitudes about criminal justice, about sentencing,” she says. “Why not now?”
Finland was the first country to introduce day-fines, having established them in 1921, but the roots of the idea run deeper. Fines were first set up as a punishment in Europe in the 1100s, and well into the Middle Ages remained a second-best alternative to simply punishing offenders by seeking personal vengeance. Montesquieu was among the first to recognize the importance of implementing them on a sliding scale. “Cannot pecuniary penalties be proportionate to fortunes?” he wondered in 1748’s The Spirit of the Laws.
The Finnish public is with Montesquieu. Four out of five Finns said that they supported day-fines over flat-rate fines in a survey from more than a decade ago, the last time the day-fine system underwent reform. (Before 1999, it was up to the offender to tell the truth to the police about his or her own income. When the police started consulting a database, day-fine revenues increased 30 percent.)
Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, who is the director of the University of Helsinki’s Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, says that an overwhelming majority of Finns still support them. “It is a matter of social justice and equal impact of punishment,” he says.
Citizens in other countries aren’t always so supportive, though. In 1991, the governments of England and Wales tried out day-fines, only to abandon them after criticism from the media. “[This failure] can be attributed mainly to the U.K. government’s inability to defend a sound system against ill-founded public pressure and misplaced criticism,” Lappi-Seppälä wrote in the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
To be sure, not all of the criticism of day-fines is misplaced. Casey Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, has valid concerns about them. “An income-based system might appear to ‘help the poor,’ but that's forgetting the victims of those crimes,” he says. He notes that income imbalances between neighborhoods could create disparities in the incidence of reckless driving. “Do we want more speeding past schools in poor neighborhoods than in rich neighborhoods?” he asks. Day-fines might make more sense in a place like Finland, where income inequality isn’t as pressing of a problem (by one measurement, at least).
Mulligan also points out that because some penalties involve time in custody, in court, or in jail, the system does, to an extent, mete out justice equally. “The value of the time component of a penalty is proportional to the penalized person’s value of time,” he says. In terms of earnings potential, an hour of a CEO’s time is worth a lot more than an hour of a janitor’s.
But at least when it comes to discouraging the wealthy from breaking the law, day-fines could be effective, says Marc Bellemare, a professor of applied economics at the University of Minnesota. “When considering a proportion of their income…people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels,” he says.
He doesn’t think the American system should be revamped overnight, but thinks that day-fines could hold promise. “We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens,” he says. Now that America is no longer of the “lock ‘em up” mentality, day-fines should get another shot.
I can spot one immediate problem with that system - declared income. This would just lead to more wealth-hiding by the rich in the same way they avoid tax.
near the bottom
maybe start throwing some (felony) charges of obstructing justice at those misrepresenting their income by a significant amount?
I think someone like Jeff Bezos is going to have a hard time trying to argue his income is low enough to get him the bare minimum fine.
Database doesn't matter if they are redefining sections of their wealth as not "income" but "investment". Which is exactly what the rich in the US do. Bezos doesn't have a salary of $Xk/hour (and he certainly COULD amass several thousand per hour, if not tens or hundreds of thousands). He pays himself a few hundred thou a year as "income". But he's worth FAR more than that. Most of it is in investment schemes though that will eventually pay out far more than a couple of hundred tho a year. The law doesn't refer to that as income.
Some traffic violations warrant an instant death penalty.
Turning right, for example.
Or pulling out right in front of me so that you can turn fifty feet down the road.
Or stopping in the middle of a roundabout...
You have problems with the pull out method, I see.
leave his mom outta this
This popped up in my timeline and I thought relevant to the discussion.
I stand by my argument that no violent offender should ever see the outside of a prison so long as they remain classified a high risk to reoffend. I'm so fucking sick of untreated, unrepentant murderers, rapists, and wife beaters getting to victimize get another innocent victim every few years for no reason.
We just had a convicted pedo a few towns over murder a mother and child after getting out on parole. How does enabling that sort of thing benefit anyone but the pedos themselves?
I posted a similar meme sometime back and more than one poster here took umbrage over it.
Some posters are little bitches w/no critical thinking skills.
Hopefully some time at college will help with that.
I’ve seen that as well. But, I … am not so certain. The difference between “illegal” and “unlawful” is [often] the difference between going to jail/prison vs getting a fine. The attack on poor people is capitalism, not fines.
Not that I think this will ever happen because corruption, but you could just use income from all sources and just divide non-hourly pay from things like investments by the days of the year. Just because some income does not count as income for tax purposes does not mean it is not reported or tracked. With the present system of the US it would take a lot because of the ways the rich can shelter their income in this country.
How long is all of this going to last when the cops are told to profile expensive cars for larger payments. Given ticketing is often done to help fund the town you are going to see cops prioritizing the rich which is going to just end the program quickly because the rich have the power. Either it will end because the rich get targeted, or the cops will never pull over a rich guy because it would be cheaper to get the cop fired and the ticket tossed.
I can live with a world where expensive cars get pulled over for random stops...
So can I, but in reality how long will it be before those rich guys start bribing or putting their stooges up for the local elections. My dad has just been on a board of an HOA and you would not believe all the nepotism and friendly contracts that come from being in the network. I got into it with some guy associated with the police department for flying a blue lives matter flag and he got his wings clipped for going into my father's gated community with his personal pickup chasing me. The board members were all over the local cops over that guy. I have seen the car since and the flag is gone and he bows his head. I have no idea who he was in the police department but those old rich white guys can get a hold of the cops if they need to, and that is why the cops are respectful to them and would never make them go face down on the pavement like a black person.
I would love to see those old white dudes pulled over too, but that is not happening.
Separate names with a comma.