Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

governing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#131

Post by apacheCamel »

russnewcomer wrote: post #128
dantheman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bail hearings you get the money back when you show up. Bail is about not being stored in jail while you await your trial -- you are innocent at that point. They want to make sure you don't run away, and in fact many are beginning to push for lower bail requirements.

In theory you get the money back. In practice, you have to borrow the money from a bail bondsman who has the cash on hand to post bail, and then pay him a percentage for his services. There are also jurisdictions which charge filing and handling fees on bail, which you never get back, which can be up to 10%. For 10k bond, which is pretty normal many places, that means 1000, just gone, not even accounting for the bond…

This is all just so you can continue to live your life and not sit in jail while waiting for trial correct? That just seems wild to me. If you don't have the money, or can't get a loan, you probably lose your job due to being in jail, which now your entirely livelihood is at stake. It just seems so broken.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#132

Post by frittig »

xoa wrote: post #119
frittig wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then arresting people when they don't pay [the fine]. So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine?

> So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine? Just go through the process of taking the money instead, no different then a civil party who was owed a legitimate debt? There is no reason a fine should be any different. Just go through the standard process, get a court order for lien, and then just seize the money from any bank accounts, liquid assets, salary, or property of any value the person…

ya, I guess that makes sense. Thanks for being the first person to explain it to me like that.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#133

Post by distances »

appleiigs wrote: post #87
distances wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a country with so-called day fines: a fine is a multiplier of your daily earnings. It boggles my mind that a similar system isn't in use everywhere. It's easy to understand and fair to everyone; a deterrent against infractions independent of your income.

If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The fine should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damage.

In case my wording wasn't clear enough: level of deterrent obviously shouldn't depend on your income, which this system roughly achieves. (Doesn't totally achieve it: a poor person can't in truth afford to lose any of their income, while a rich one could easily temporarily let go of over 90% without it affecting anything; for that I don't see an easy fix.)

As said, I can't imagine a moral justification for not implementing some similar scheme.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#134

Post by russnewcomer »

apacheCamel wrote: post #131
russnewcomer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory you get the money back. In practice, you have to borrow the money from a bail bondsman who has the cash on hand to post bail, and then pay him a percentage for his services. There are also jurisdictions which charge filing and handling fees on bail, which you never get back, which can be up to 10%. For 10k bond, which is pretty normal many places, that means 1000, just gone, not even accounting for the bond…

This is all just so you can continue to live your life and not sit in jail while waiting for trial correct? That just seems wild to me. If you don't have the money, or can't get a loan, you probably lose your job due to being in jail, which now your entirely livelihood is at stake. It just seems so broken.

Yes, you are essentially correct - it was a well-intentioned reform that has not been re-evaluated for current times, or it is judges who lack personal finance skills or realities to know that the bails they impose are not realistic for those who appear in their courts.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#135

Post by duxup »

mikeash wrote: post #110
duxup wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The folks in charge get paid by the government and the amount the government is able to pay is highly dependent on the amount of funding it gets. Doesn't that apply to all government where someone is paid?

> If they are going to use minor violations of the law as a pretext for revenue collection, they should call it what it is: kleptocracy. Context!

Isn't any fine revenue collection?

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#136

Post by distances »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #113
distances wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a country with so-called day fines: a fine is a multiplier of your daily earnings. It boggles my mind that a similar system isn't in use everywhere. It's easy to understand and fair to everyone; a deterrent against infractions independent of your income.

Yet another reason for the wealthy to obfuscate their earnings.

Earnings are visible in tax decisions. Dodging taxes is a crime in itself, and unrelated to day fines.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#137

Post by shados »

siavosh wrote: post #42
shados wrote: post #34

I always felt like punitive fines and fees, tickets, etc, should be de facto given out to a third party, unaffiliated charity. Got a ticket for not picking up after your dog? Money goes to an animal protection group. Of course, even WITH the economic incentive a lot of these things get little to no attention/enforcement, so without it will be even less. Sigh. At least ridiculously random road rules would go away?

3rd party contributions may then incentivize the formation of special interest charity lobbies pushing for more fines unfortunately.

Heh, dealing with the intersection of money and people is hard.

Lets just use the death penalty for everything. Less money involved then.

Oh damn, the people making injection drugs will lobby too... I just can't win.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#138

Post by mikeash »

duxup wrote: post #135
mikeash wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they are going to use minor violations of the law as a pretext for revenue collection, they should call it what it is: kleptocracy. Context!

Isn't any fine revenue collection?

Yes, but not all fines are for minor violations, and not all fines are a pretext for revenue collection.

Re: Small towns in much of the country are dependent on punitive fines and fees

#139

Post by pessimizer »

appleiigs wrote: post #87
distances wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a country with so-called day fines: a fine is a multiplier of your daily earnings. It boggles my mind that a similar system isn't in use everywhere. It's easy to understand and fair to everyone; a deterrent against infractions independent of your income.

If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The fine should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damage.

If I were moderately wealthy, there would be no incentive not to just think of the fine as a fee to break any ordinance wherever and whenever I wanted. Fines aren't costs, they are a deterrent.
Post reply on HN