Posted on 03/18/2018 6:31:28 PM PDT by Simon Green
If Mark Zuckerberg and a janitor who works at Facebook’s headquarters each received a speeding ticket while driving home from work, they’d each owe the government the same amount of money. Mr. Zuckerberg wouldn’t bat an eye.
The janitor is another story.
For people living on the economic margins, even minor offenses can impose crushing financial obligations, trapping them in a cycle of debt and incarceration for nonpayment. In Ferguson, Mo., for example, a single $151 parking violation sent a black woman struggling with homelessness into a seven-year odyssey of court appearances, arrest warrants and jail time connected to her inability to pay.
Across America, one-size-fits-all fines are the norm, which I demonstrate in an article for the University of Chicago Law Review. Where judges do have wiggle room to choose the size of a fine, mandatory minimums and maximums often tie their hands. Some states even prohibit consideration of a person’s income. And when courts are allowed to take finances into account, they frequently fail to do so.
Other places have saner methods. Finland and Argentina, for example, have tailored fines to income for almost 100 years. The most common model, the “day fine,” scales sanctions to a person’s daily wage. A small offense like littering might cost a fraction of a day’s pay. A serious crime might swallow a month’s paycheck. Everyone pays the same proportion of their income.
For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The differential comes out in the value of the person’s time wasted with a revenue collection agent.
My opinion: The author needs to be put in a straight jacket and housed in a padded cell.
Entirely and only my opinion.
Right. I think that police should be able to pull up your tax returns, pension and bank accounts. Fits right in with civil asset forfeiture.
So what if my chauffeur does the speeding?
What about a complete welfare leech with no salary?
Would the NYT take away their EBT for a month? Didn’t think so.
No consequences for them.
Have to go to school for a long time to come up with ideas this stupid.
The cornerstone of America is equality under the law. It’s a two way street.
As far as sanity is concerned, I’d point out using Argentina as an example isn’t a good one. They were the world’s 3rd wealthiest country at one time, but then the levelers and socialists showed up. I don’t know where they rank today, but they aren’t anywhere near 3rd. Further, who gives a fvck how they do anything somewhere else as a matter of policy?
As a practical matter, the wealthy will find it problematic (just as anyone else) with repeat offenses the penalties increase, eventually loss of license, insurance premium rates soar, etc.
This is just a “wedge” issue to use to undermine the concept of equal treatment under the law, in my opinion. If one doesn’t think about it too deeply, from 50 yards away, squint a little, the arguments made don’t sound bad at all. “Stick it to the Rich!” always sounds populist and can be counted on to have advocates. Anything coming from NYT editorial should be faulted just on general principles most likely, as a kind of contrary indicator.
Everyone has the same amount of time.
Put each to work picking up trash from the street, or pulling kudzu.
This would impact the minimum wage worker no harder than the lawyer with his “$350 Billable Hour”.
This is not really about the poor, its just a way to take more from the rich.
We could do like Singapore and use caning.
Funny how liberals NEVER want to emulate Singapore.
(And then, of course, the criminal invader should pay for whatever welfare and medical and educational services received, then deported.)
.
You’re right, this would increase exponentially the job opportunities for drivers
Maybe they shouldn’t worry so much about speeding to begin with.
And if they do, maybe the fines should actually be much lower, considering the actual harm it causes, typically none.
Speeding is over-enforced. Keep it for the big racers, and don’t bother with those doing what 99% of the public is doing.
I’m all for it. Penalty for perjury for those below $100k per year, a fine of $100. penalty for perjury for those making above $100k per year, $1000. Penalty for perjury for anyone in Congress or the Federal Government, the death penalty within 6 weeks of conviction.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” - Karl Marx
I do know mine...I'll serve a year in jail...if she serves 10.
It’s not faaaaaiiiiiirrrrrr....
equal protection under the law
Some people deserve less freedom under the law than others. And the liberal media is here to name them.
How about the politicians quit taxing via police treat of violence? Nope. As long as police are 75 revenue agents, I dot give a crap and green lives can go to hell.
They risk NOTHING...I have ALL the risk.
Don't get me started on my total tax bill....
I think he should be drawn and quartered and then fed to the hounds so the get a taste for idiocracy and will hunt it down. Ow My Balls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.