Trump's War on the Poor/Minorities continues

[_Kevin Graham]

Here's a fun debtors' prison story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 44178aae88

In August 2016, “Mother A,” an African-American resident of Jackson, was traveling through Pearl while looking for employment. She was a passenger in a friend’s car, and her child rode with them in a car seat. When the car was stopped for a minor traffic violation, it was discovered that both adults had outstanding warrants for routine misdemeanor offenses. Upon arresting the women, the officer contacted DHS claiming that the child was “abandoned” as a result of the women being detained. The baby’s grandmother arrived on the scene within minutes, yet the officer still insisted that the child be taken before Judge [John] Shirley at the Pearl Youth Court. Less than half an hour later, Judge Shirley awarded custody to the baby’s grandmother. An order was later entered prohibiting “Mother A” from having any contact with her baby until court fees were paid in full.

The mother was barred from contact for 14 of the baby's first 18 months of life. The response here from, well, two people, seems to channel an almost sociopathic level of callousness by arguing that if you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime. That this is far, far too draconian for the offense - not paying court fees - is completely lost.

The party of family/Christian "values" no doubt. Amirite Uncle Ed?

[_subgenius]

Your number of "days" would scale to your income level.

So a wealthy person would serve more time for assault than a poor person?

[_EAllusion]

Don't you prefer flat taxes Ajax?

I'm not convinced that prorated fines act as a deterrent. Having lived on $8/hr and having lived on $150k/year, I think I felt more sting from tithing the more I earned. When I made $8/hr, 10% was still a trivial amount and really didn't make much difference either way. At $150k, it's the price of new automobile.

If you make 150k and have to pay $700, that should affect you far less than if you make 16k and have to pay $700. If it doesn't, you have absolutely no sense of budgeting. If you change it to a %, say .4%, you should still feel the hit more making less because your discretionary income is so tight as it is. If you are the opposite, that makes you unusual. Based on everything else you've said over the years, I get the sense that you live right up to your means, so you can ill afford unexpected hits in your income. So, for you, a $600 hit might seem worse than $60 if you were dirt poor, but for most that would be a matter of tightening the entertainment budget in the case of the former and the food budget in the case of the latter.

Your desire for deterrence seems confused. You genuinely believe that a billionaire having to pay a $500 fine deters that person even though that amount of money is nothing to them? I think what you are worried about is deterring poor people. I suspect that you believe the wealthy to be more morally upstanding and thus less in need of deterrence, but you can explain it yourself.

[_EAllusion]

Your number of "days" would scale to your income level.

So a wealthy person would serve more time for assault than a poor person?

No. Fines in most of Scandinavia are determined by days of income. So each offense has a day-multiplier. Then you pay whatever that is given your daily income. If an offense is 4 days, then you pay 4x whatever you make in a day. It has nothing to do with time served.

What I suggested was a progressive system would scale the multiplier with income, as tax brackets do. An offense might carry X number of days at one income level and Y number of days at another income level. This is how you'd equalize financial pain.

[_Maxine Waters]

You genuinely believe that a billionaire having to pay a $500 fine deters that person even though that amount of money is nothing to them?

Billionaires usually aren't out causing accidents in lawless roadways like those in Memphis. You can take a billionaire to civil court and fine him. People would love to be hit by billionaire and get a civil court windfall. Poor people with criminal records and bad credit are free to break the law with impunity because they have nothing to lose. Most of them find themselves in jail only after decades of refusing to pay tickets and fines, else why would the state spend so much on billboards offering 50% off on 10 year old traffic tickets. It's to the point in Memphis that the police don't even pull them over for their most egregious driving offenses because they know they're indigent and it costs the state money to ticket them. The police look for people who appear to have the means to pay the fines and they do jail these people for refusing to pay. I do agree that what motivates the officers is how much money how they do their job makes for the department. But it certainly doesn't bend the scales of justice against the poor and minorities. It's often the other way around. Try speeding when you drive through Memphis some time EAllusion. Then try not paying your ticket. I assure you that you would be in jail with a few days. Your red head and fat wallet would not go unnoticed for 10 years nor be offered amnesty.

I've seen people detained for robbing a convenience store claim they need medical attention. Threats like this are often enough to get the officers to let them go lest the state have to pay their healthcare costs.

[_EAllusion]

Billionaires usually aren't out causing accidents in lawless roadways like those in Memphis. You can take a billionaire to civil court and fine him.

Presumably they have car insurance.

You are aware that more things are fined than behavior that causes car accidents, right? For example, having weeds in your lawn. Then on top of that, is it your belief that the wealthy - people most likely to own high performance cars - don't speed? Or are you simply noting there are fewer of them so we don't need to worry about it?

My point isn't some hypothetical. For example, take this story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/s ... -soak.html

In California there are fines associated with what the state defines as excessive water usage during droughts. The wealthy pay those like they are nothing while everyone else has to obey or face being crushed by heavy fines. That's what happens when the penalty for something doesn't vary based on your ability to pay. The incentives are different. If fines are a pittance to a wealthy person, it'll naturally have less of a deterrent effect. I was addressing you expressing concern about fines not having enough of a deterrent effect.

It's to the point in Memphis that the police don't even pull them over for their most egregious driving offenses because they know they're indigent and it costs the state money to ticket them.

I love how you've become an expert on Memphis here even though you just got done saying there is a fine system in the city that doesn't actually exist.

The police look for people who appear to have the means to pay the fines and they do jail these people for refusing to pay. I do agree that what motivates the officers is how much money how they do their job makes for the department. But it certainly doesn't bend the scales of justice against the poor and minorities. It's often the other way around. Try speeding when you drive through Memphis some time EAllusion. Then try not paying your ticket. I assure you that you would be in jail with a few days. Your red head and fat wallet would not go unnoticed for 10 years nor be offered amnesty.

Sure. Memphis is basically Mad Max, only blacks run around in a lawless state while whites are bled dry with fines. That's definitely happening. Meanwhile, this doesn't address the specific points and policies I was offering. Habitual driving offenses should and do result in loss of license because of an established pattern of unsafe driving irrespective of whether fines are paid or not. And you can punish people for the offense of driving without a license, lost due to unsafe driving, rather than their capacity to afford fines. As for your incorrect belief that the fine system actually advantages poors and minorities, please see the offered links.

[_subgenius]

This is how you'd equalize financial pain.

But it does not equalize financial pain and ultimately creates inequality in the justice system.
It seems that your goal is not to deter crime but rather make crime more affordable for the poor....and you are inconsistent even on that point.

[_EAllusion]

This is how you'd equalize financial pain.

But it does not equalize financial pain and ultimately creates inequality in the justice system.
It seems that your goal is not to deter crime but rather make crime more affordable for the poor....and you are inconsistent even on that point.

It no more creates inequality than not charging each citizen the exact same amount in taxes creates inequality. It's looking at equality at the proper level. The idea is to promote more equality in financial distress out of fairness for all levels of wealth. The idea is to make affordability more even to equalize the penalty and deterrent aspects of fines.

The odd thing about your accusation of bad faith is that it has an inverse. Why are you trying to make crime so affordable for people of means?

[_Maxine Waters]

As for your incorrect belief that the fine system actually advantages poors and minorities, please see the offered links.

If you take away the threat of jail time for unpaid fines, what incentive does someone with bad credit have to pay the fine? They're not even scared of the fines because they know they'll never have to pay them. When you have nothing to lose you can get away with a lot more than someone who has a good job or a family farm that a judge can take in court.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you take more money from 'here' and give it to people doing things over 'there' they'll be less likely to commit crime because *reasons*.

- Doc