21–30 of 92 posts
It makes no sense that money police collects goes directly towards funding any government department. It should go into a tax refund pool.
It makes no sense that money police collects goes directly towards funding any government department. It should go into a tax refund pool.
Totally agree. All this should go into a central/state coffers and redustributed to policing based on need. There are rural areas greatly underserved by law enforcement due to low pop densities, so there has to be something which accounts fir that.
It makes no sense that money police collects goes directly towards funding any government department. It should go into a tax refund pool.
Totally agree. All this should go into a central/state coffers and redustributed to policing based on need. There are rural areas greatly underserved by law enforcement due to low pop densities, so there has to be something which accounts fir that.
>If Middletown’s police department collected only about 1 percent of its revenue from fees and fines, our model predicts it would solve 53 percent of its violent crimes and 32 percent of its property crimes. But if Middletown’s police department instead collected 3 percent of its revenue from fees and fines, our model predicts that clearance rates would fall to 41 percent for violent crimes and 16 percent for propert…
I think this misses the point. Issues like this are multi-faceted. Would people rather pay higher taxes or have the police get the money from speeders and parking violators? People who live in cities must have parking rules or you are walking 4 blocks from your car to house each night. My brother-in-law is a state police. When he was on patrol, they would get lots of calls because someone mowed across someone else's…
Wow.... I would like to see that parent charged with wasting police time.
It makes no sense that money police collects goes directly towards funding any government department. It should go into a tax refund pool.
In Canada, you get a 20-25% surcharge on your fines called the "Victim Fine Surcharge". It goes directly into a fund that pays out to victims of crime. Aside from that, the fines go to the jurisdiction that charged you, which can then be used for whatever the jurisdiction wants; road repairs, school improvements, landscaping, administration, etc. etc. So if you were charged with a provincial fine, the money would go…
A $50 5-over ticket comes with a $100 surcharge that goes to the anti-DUI education fund, $100 toward the brain injury fund, $100 toward the reckless drivers victims fund, etc etc. All these fines get directed at various nonprofits that do things like run the mandatory classes people have to to take after getting a DUI or your 3rd speeding ticket or whatever. Of course those classes cost hundreds of dollars to attend. I don't think anyone is quite sure where the money goes. Of course this is all done with good intentions but the practical effect is that it just increases the fraction of the population who's one traffic offense away from sliding into poverty.
Awhile ago there was an article posted here about the breakdown of fines for a simple speeding ticket in CA and it was pretty disgusting the amount of fines that one has to pay in addition to the ticket itself and it all goes toward stuff that should probably be funded via the general budget or not at all. Maybe someone can find the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. All this should go into a central/state coffers and redustributed to policing based on need. There are rural areas greatly underserved by law enforcement due to low pop densities, so there has to be something which accounts fir that.
Its hard for some people to believe just how low budget some rural areas are for policing. I used to live in a west coast county that was about 6,000 sq miles. It had one city with a population over 25k. (about 66,000 total in the county) At nights, there was 2 county deputies, and 2 state police officers on duty. (the city had its own force with 2 officers on duty at night) Also, their costs were pretty high, since…
They had a part-time mayor/police officer. When he wasn't running the town, he was bringing in revenue by sitting in his car outside the courthouse waiting for a "speeder" to "blow through" his 15 mph zone and pay him the $75 ticket.
Since I didn't live there, I'm not sure if calling 9-1-1 called this cop/mayor directly, or if it went to my town's dispatch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. All this should go into a central/state coffers and redustributed to policing based on need. There are rural areas greatly underserved by law enforcement due to low pop densities, so there has to be something which accounts fir that.
There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when autonomous cars that stick to the speed limit become the majority of traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when autonomous cars that stick to the speed limit become the majority of traffic.
Some people will refuse to buy them for years. People will be buying cheap used cards for years, and those will be normal cars for quite a long time. Dollars to doughnuts the sensors and cameras and whatnot on a lot of autonomous cars will fail before the car itself does, rendering them back to manual. And again the used car market isn't going away.
There might be plenty of manual drivers in fifty years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was trying to think of a place to stick the money that wouldn't incentivize over-policing and couldn't think of one. But your option is perfect. There's obviously no incentive for government employees to return money to tax payers, so if anything, this would incentivize under-enforcement of fines and fees.
Aren't government employees also taxpayers? The incentive is much weaker, but still there.