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

91–100 of 166 posts

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

#91

Post by appleiigs »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #70
xfitm3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is bad.

No it isn't. Handing a $100 fine to person X and person Y is ridiculous when person X makes minimal wage and person Y is a C level executive making $400K. Normalizing the fine to the median income and proportionate changing it by income level is equitable and fair. You can look for legal precedence in bail hearings, where wealth and flight risk are definitely and correctly taken into account.

Discriminating against race, age, gender is bad. You need to treat people fairly. However, when it comes to rich people you think it's OK?

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

#92

Post by mywittyname »

duxup wrote: post #67
motohagiography wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that municipal or county government is operated by unionized public workers, including police, then the revenue collection is going primarily to pay that union, who in turn fund politicians who continue their revenue collection policies to pay their members. It's capture, so in effect, kleptocracy.

Under your description all government that pays someone(s) would qualify. That's not what kleptocracy means. >is going primarily to pay that union, I don't think that is accurate.

The article even specifies that several towns earmark fine revenue specifically and exclusively for use by the police department:

> Georgia, for example, levies about a dozen fees, and they’re used to pay for a state police motorcycle unit, a brain and spinal injury trust fund, and a police supplemental retirement fund.

And the other cases where the money for fines paid in cash just disappeared:

> A Louisiana state audit last year found that some cash payments for citations in Fenton were never deposited in the village’s bank account and alleged improper compensation to city officials.

These are just the direct ways in which revenue from fines are funneled into the pocketbooks of those writing the citations. It doesn't even look into the more tradition mechanics of kleptocrats, where government funds are directly funneled to businesses owned by politicians.

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

#93

Post by duxup »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #80
duxup wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article adequately describes how difficult it is to "find an alternative" particularly when the state legislature is cutting off those paths.

Alternative for what purpose? These towns and counties already have basically nil for services.

Presumably for whatever services the town might want to offer. Police, fire, water, sewer, etc. I think we can all imagine what those things might be from city to city.

Believe it or not small towns do offer some services, it might not be much compared to others, but little is still something that needs to be funded.

I can understand a bit of the rural vs urban issues in the US when I see a lot of arguments here that because they offer very little (perhaps just compared to an outsider's point of view) ... that means they shouldn't have any?

Meanwhile as the article notes state legislatures cut off funding from the state / limit their ability to gather funds by other means.

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

#94

Post by dantheman »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #70
xfitm3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is bad.

No it isn't. Handing a $100 fine to person X and person Y is ridiculous when person X makes minimal wage and person Y is a C level executive making $400K. Normalizing the fine to the median income and proportionate changing it by income level is equitable and fair. You can look for legal precedence in bail hearings, where wealth and flight risk are definitely and correctly taken into account.

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.

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

#95

Post by oconnor663 »

btilly wrote: post #7

Punitive fines and fees are bad. Abuse of civil forfeiture is worse. But worse still are a minority of towns that not only are dependent on punitive fines, but that levy them in a racially biased way. See https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-f... for an explanation of how this helped ignite the racial tension that Ferguson had a few years ago.

This seems like a huge problem. At the same time, it's easier to point out that it's a huge problem than to suggest a solution that doesn't have bad side effects. If the courts don't enforce the laws somehow, the worst repeat offenders end up seriously abusing their neighbors with no consequences. Replacing fines with time-consuming punishments like mandatory community service would be problematic, because low income folks often have little flexibility in their working hours, and getting fired from a job is even worse at a low level of income than it is for everyone else. It might be that just lowering the size of fines would help some, but it seems like a fine that couldn't hurt anyone also effectively punishes no one.

Maybe there's a middle ground where fines are punishing for repeat offenders, but ordinary folks who show up in court get a few slaps on the wrist before fines kick in? Are some of the laws already structured like this?

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

#96

Post by duxup »

JackFr wrote: post #82
duxup wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just imagine if they returned the revenue to the people." Arguably that idea is what lead to the current situation in some cases.... As the article notes state legislatures cut local government funding, they limit how they can gather funds, probabbly under the idea that they're returning revenue to the people ... so the local government gathers funds the only way they can find it. And here we are.

> so the local government gathers funds the only way they can find it. Because the local government is a bureaucracy, and the first motivation of a bureaucracy is the same as with any organism, self-preservation. Rather than elections for sheriff and alderman, etc. there should be referenda every couple of years to dissolve the jurisdiction.

They could elect people who can choose to do as you describe.

Perhaps the locals don't want to?

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

#97

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

The financialization of modern life puts extra pressure on areas without much economic activity. Self-government enables local needs to be discussed and addressed while serving as a job program for more than just the few elected positions; it raises its own revenues but also generates new costs. Locally-generated revenue has to supplement scant subsidies from the state.

Within this template, a fortunate jurisdiction can collect fines and fees from out-of-towners without significantly making locals' lives miserable. An unfortunate jurisdiction harasses locals too. This is not unlike how corporations take advantage of laws, but with the added abuse potential of being able to make up laws too.

The state stepping in and forcing a disincorporation of the local jurisdiction isn't necessarily a good answer. It stops the immediate symptom of near-abuse or actual abuse of power but doesn't provide a framework to substitute economic activity. Far better is limiting the level to which local governments have control over decisions of policing, but such measures are unpopular. The status quo largely continues, with investigations opened into a few high-profile cases of abuse of power, and the rest can keep doing what they do for now.

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

#98

Post by frittig »

btilly wrote: post #7

Punitive fines and fees are bad. Abuse of civil forfeiture is worse. But worse still are a minority of towns that not only are dependent on punitive fines, but that levy them in a racially biased way. See https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-f... for an explanation of how this helped ignite the racial tension that Ferguson had a few years ago.

> and then arresting people when they don't pay [the fine].

So what should the government do if someone doesn't pay their fine?

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

#100

Post by duxup »

mywittyname wrote: post #92
duxup wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under your description all government that pays someone(s) would qualify. That's not what kleptocracy means. >is going primarily to pay that union, I don't think that is accurate.

The article even specifies that several towns earmark fine revenue specifically and exclusively for use by the police department: > Georgia, for example, levies about a dozen fees, and they’re used to pay for a state police motorcycle unit, a brain and spinal injury trust fund, and a police supplemental retirement fund. And the other cases where the money for fines paid in cash just disappeared: > A Louisiana state a…

I don't think given examples of questionable behavior means it's all "kleptocracy".

The article does a good job describing the tax policies that influence heavy reliance on fines and etc, that's not kleptocracy, that's just bad policy with bad results.

Post reply on HN