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

Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#41

Post by clairity »

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #36
clairity wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a good policy change that mitigates the moral hazard of fines in general. i know it'd never happen, but i'd love to see something similar with fines from all sorts of companies, to reduce their use all over the economy as a way of hiding the true cost of products (particularly internet and phones). however, i'd challenge the idea that solving more crimes is necessarily a better use of our tax dollars. cars are…

cars are the number one killer of people in america that police can directly affect. so why wouldn't we want more enforcement of traffic rules I think automotive industry innovation can do more to bring the fatalities down than any practical amount of policing. Also, I'm tired of the low standards for actual driving ability in America, combined with the lazy speed enforcement approach by cops. My life has very, very…

the automotive industry has done a good job improving auto safety already, and i'm sure will continue to work on it, but i imagine the improvements are marginal at this point. auto makers would have to rip out all screens and install sensors to detect eating, drinking, phone use, newspaper reading, makeup application, etc. to make a large dent in the problem.

but i'm with you about distracted and incompetent driving. let's better enforce unsafe driving laws, like blowing through stop signs or careening across 4 lanes to exit the freeway at the last minute (both of which i see all the time). and let's incorporate simulators in driving tests that put people in a variety of potential accident scenarios that they must successfully maneuver. or something even better. but something real, not this safety theater we have now.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#42

Post by clairity »

mc32 wrote: post #39
clairity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i really dislike speed traps. i'd even support a proposition to convert all speed limits to suggested speeds (thereby abolishing fines for speeding). you could and should still punish dangerous driving, but speed by itself wouldn't serve as the threshold for unsafe driving.

Problem with that is that for the most part speed is a pretty objective measure —whereas “dangerous driving” isn’t, so will result in uneven interpretation/application.

agreed. i considered that for a second, but i figure the real policy makers would spend a little more time thinking that part through. =)

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#43

Post by dsfyu404ed »

clairity wrote: post #41
hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cars are the number one killer of people in america that police can directly affect. so why wouldn't we want more enforcement of traffic rules I think automotive industry innovation can do more to bring the fatalities down than any practical amount of policing. Also, I'm tired of the low standards for actual driving ability in America, combined with the lazy speed enforcement approach by cops. My life has very, very…

the automotive industry has done a good job improving auto safety already, and i'm sure will continue to work on it, but i imagine the improvements are marginal at this point. auto makers would have to rip out all screens and install sensors to detect eating, drinking, phone use, newspaper reading, makeup application, etc. to make a large dent in the problem. but i'm with you about distracted and incompetent driving.…

>let's better enforce unsafe driving laws, like blowing through stop signs or careening across 4 lanes to exit the freeway at the last minute (both of which i see all the time).

>something real, not this safety theater we have now.

Exactly.

I don't really care if you eat a hamburger while driving an overloaded truck with a manual transmission and manual steering so long as it doesn't result in you blowing stop signs or cutting me off trying to make your exit.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#44

Post by phil248 »

snarf21 wrote: post #11
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #3

>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…

It's almost like we need a separate force to deal with many of the issues you're describing. It could probably lessen the load of traditional police forces and at a reduced cost.

Plus, there may be some social benefits to having a civic response force that does not wander the streets with loaded firearms.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#45

Post by Theodores »

Another reason why the U.S.A. should have stayed on with the British Crown. In the UK revenue from speeding tickets goes to the Queen's Consolidated Fund:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund

Police officers in the UK don't get to enrich their departments or their local towns by fining more people. For that we have parking and 'yellow box junctions' where councils can make lots of money by fining motorists. It is just a tax on motorists, not really 'crime' what goes on with this.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#46

Post by taeric »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #28
grimjack00 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when autonomous cars that stick to the speed limit become the majority of traffic.

The speed limits will go up to reflect reality by then so it won't matter who/what is driving the car.

I think the point is that the revenue from these fines would drop if compliance was perfect.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#47

Post by JeffreyKaine »

mc32 wrote: post #39
clairity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i really dislike speed traps. i'd even support a proposition to convert all speed limits to suggested speeds (thereby abolishing fines for speeding). you could and should still punish dangerous driving, but speed by itself wouldn't serve as the threshold for unsafe driving.

Problem with that is that for the most part speed is a pretty objective measure —whereas “dangerous driving” isn’t, so will result in uneven interpretation/application.

Choosing to enforce a speeding law is still subjective though, so this wouldn't change much. We speed all over California, police choose to go after the most dangerous (or least conforming to community standards, or... some other even less good measure, like race).

Most policing is subjective.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#48

Post by justaguyhere »

snarf21 wrote: post #11
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #3

>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…

someone stole someone else's pet rabbit. scare him straight

Aren't these better cases for a fine than ticketing someone for going 5mph over limit?

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#49

Post by wdewind »

ransom1538 wrote: post #40

Our local police department (Oviedo florida) takes a police car 200 ft from the station and sits it by a 25mph zone that feeds into a 50 mph zone [1]. Now that my wife and I have both been ticketed (30mph) we go the speed limit -- what is even more weird --- going 25mph near a freeway is really dangerous as cars honk and freak out behind you swerving to get around you. https://www.google.com/maps/place/28%C2%B038'57.…

This is actually the kind of thing your congressperson can sometimes be helpful with. Worth a call.

Re: Police that collect more in fees and fines are less effective at solving crime

#50

Post by mc32 »

JeffreyKaine wrote: post #47
mc32 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with that is that for the most part speed is a pretty objective measure —whereas “dangerous driving” isn’t, so will result in uneven interpretation/application.

Choosing to enforce a speeding law is still subjective though, so this wouldn't change much. We speed all over California, police choose to go after the most dangerous (or least conforming to community standards, or... some other even less good measure, like race). Most policing is subjective.

I understand that but at least you know what to expect: “I’m going 42mph in a 35 zone, I might get pulled over and issued a ticket”, vs. “hmmm I wonder if going 35mph is dangerous driving, does passing a bike mean it’s dangerous? Does it being dusk mean it’s dangerous? Huh, I don’t really know”.
Post reply on HN