51–60 of 123 posts
Seems like a good idea to accompany the jail stay with a $22K bill for the costs. Don't want to pay the fine? Pay the goddamn fare.
Can someone explain it to me, why in SF its treated as a minor ticket similar to overdue parking meters as apposed to NYC where people are jailed for not having a valid ticket ? Never thought NYC could be soo ridiculous.
This wasn't a case of not having a valid ticket. This was a case of turnstile jumping. There is a big difference in intent there.
"I could demonstrate to you that every single bank robbery, that in every single case practically, the cost of the police was more than the actual money that the robbers took from the bank. Does that mean, 'Oh, you see, there's really no economic interest involved, then. They're not protecting the banks. The police are just doing this because they're on a power trip, or they're macho, or they're control freaks, that'…
It's quite common in the US to do things like prosecute a notorious mafioso on tax evasion because they can't prove the murders etc. that he's responsible for. We don't know all the details of this specific case.
Yes, I get it, our entire 'justice' system is the worst element of a nation with a long history of racism. I wish we would find real remedies.
I don't see this particular thing really adding substantive discussion and furthering solutions.
Can anyone tell me what constructive purpose this serves?
Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it didn't cost $22,000. If he didn't go to a jail would the city save $22k? The city lost $215,000,000 in revenue due to the fare evasion.
That assumes people would pay the money otherwise. Which is almost certainly not true. The people who don’t pay likely don’t have the money in the first place or are drunk. It’s unlikely they would have paid any ways.
You're also not allowed to bring your own lunch to eat in the cafeteria, but that system can work out okay when you have dedicated chefs at each school, and cheap good cheese (and funding for... children to eat... a bizarre concept in some parts of the world).
"I could demonstrate to you that every single bank robbery, that in every single case practically, the cost of the police was more than the actual money that the robbers took from the bank. Does that mean, 'Oh, you see, there's really no economic interest involved, then. They're not protecting the banks. The police are just doing this because they're on a power trip, or they're macho, or they're control freaks, that'…
Despite quoting that I'm not a hardcore leftist (anymore). I don't see that as a leftist quote. The police aren't supposed to be a profit center.
You can make an argument that based on enforcement costs, the subsidies alternative transportation receive, and the externalities of such that the optimal fare price for public transportation is negative. If the optimal fair price is negative then you shouldn't charge fares at all. You can find leftists, conservatives, fascists that agree with that.
I'd imagine the cost of arrests and incarceration are sunk costs though. It's not like we pay the police $2,000 for each arrest, or pay the prison $500/night per inmate. Does anyone know if these numbers were taken by adding up the costs of running a prison and police department and dividing by the number of arrests and inmates? If so, it's a little disingenuous to make this argument. Also, these cases are not about…
> It's not like we pay the police $2,000 for each arrest Not in a direct sense - but civil asset forfeiture and arrest/citation quotas do incentivize individual officers to take actions that benefit their department's budget and their annual review, respectively. > It's not like we [...] pay the prison $500/night per inmate In the case of private prisons (which house 8% of the US prison population[0]), a per-prisoner…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wasn't a case of not having a valid ticket. This was a case of turnstile jumping. There is a big difference in intent there.
Could you please explain the difference in intent? Sounds to me like its someone trying to ride for free in both cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions And to a lesser extent, this ignores the subset of circumstances where people forget to pay, actually do pay but the payment gets lost, or can't afford to pay but need to get places. This is why 3-strike rules are abject failures (life…
If we just stopped enforcing the laws, the damage to our society would be incalculable. Is it worth it to prosecute petty thefts for less than $100? If not, then we are giving the green light to that kind of crime. What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law? > This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally br…
Small businesses exist even in places with no laws. Not saying it is a good idea to not have laws, or not enforce them, but it isn't like EVERYTHING ceases to work when laws aren't enforced.
I also don't think the effect is incalculable. We have lots of examples of places where the government collapses and there is no longer any enforcement of the law. We could certainly research the effect his has on the economy.
I am in no way arguing that we should abandon laws or stop enforcing petty crime, just saying it isn't quite that simple.