61–70 of 123 posts
On the train the police walk around checking tickets rather than having a ticketing booth etc. We obviously got caught.
We got fined what I think was $500 each and we deserved it. I should have just paid the $2.75.
Edit: I think it was Prague it's been a really long time.
This seems to be an unfair comparison to me. The penalty for not paying the fare is not meant to somehow recuperate the lost cost - instead, the penalty is there to incentivize people to pay the regular fare, rather than skipping it. The real question to ask is: if the penalty were reduced, how much more money would be lost due to the increased number of people not paying the subway fare? I don't see a good way to an…
If one is going to make an argument for any specific level of punishment for this offense, it should be based on the expected total cost/benefit across the entire population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It most certainly does not amount to good wages for the person who is in jail for not paying a $2.75 fare. Their 60 days in jail will have long-lasting implications on their livelihood for the rest of their life. There are grave "collateral consequences" we must consider. (Read https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512920 for more on what this looks like.)
Then they should have thought about that before they decided to commit a crime. Life is about choices and consequences, and being overly permissive with those who have no qualms about breaking the law leads to a sick society where those who do actually follow the law are the ones who suffer.
No one is trying to defend the person, just trying to reason about what is best for our society as a whole.
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.
Because it's usually fined $100, that means something else is going on.
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.
Putting someone in jail for breaking the law isn't about costs. Besides before you know it nobody pays for their ticket and then what? This is a nice deterrent for any other sad sack who thinks he is above the rules.
People tend to act like it is a given that a stricter penalty decreases the occurrence of the crime, but that isn't always the case.
We should just make the subway free. $2.75 doesn't come close to covering the cost of the ride, so why add a regressive tax on what amounts to a basic need?
I like this idea but think it has some practical problems. The money needs to come from somewhere. Normally I'd say just move it to some other form of existing taxation like income tax or property taxes. However, a reasonably large portion of regular subway users are people that live in New Jersey but commute to work in New York. You'd probably need to figure out a way to get money from these people as well. Potentia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please explain the difference in intent? Sounds to me like its someone trying to ride for free in both cases.
Some people might be just trying to get away with not paying a parking meter deliberately, but we can't prove that when writing parking tickets. Most people probably just forget or cut it a little too close with their plans when they overstay a parking meter.
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.
And if they handed out $50 tickets for fare evasion, how much revenue would that generate?
I don't know enough to take a position on this issue one way or another, but I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset the cost.
Rational deterrence theory and associated studies generally hold that the scale of deterrence means very little if it isn't reliably put into use.
That is to say, picking out a few unlucky rule violators and inflicting tremendous punishments on them has very little effect, while reliably inflicting minor punishments on most people who violate the rules has a much more noticeable effect on compliance.