Post by lasagnasshole on May 21, 2014 11:00:24 GMT -5
OK, legit question - did kme learn English as a second language? Because if so, I don't want to make fun of her.
But if not, damn. "[F]inancially and theoretically broke?" Does this mean the system is broke in theory but not in practice? Or that it has no theories? I don't know what this means.
And the lack of subject-verb agreement in "The article have a quote..." is about to make my head explode.
Yes, I realize this post is mean and doesn't go to the substance of the matter, but it's hard to take anyone seriously when I can barely understand what she's saying.
OK, legit question - did kme learn English as a second language? Because if so, I don't want to make fun of her.
But if not, damn. "[F]inancially and theoretically broke?" Does this mean the system is broke in theory but not in practice? Or that it has no theories? I don't know what this means.
And the lack of subject-verb agreement in "The article have a quote..." is about to make my head explode.
Yes, I realize this post is mean and doesn't go to the substance of the matter, but it's hard to take anyone seriously when I can barely understand what she's saying.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Again, we are NOT talking about your standard court fees. We are talking about special fees tacked on top of your standard fees you think about when you think of court costs.
We are talking about mandatory payments to the legal aid fund and all sorts of padding the costs business. It's not even, hey, we're charging you for the lawyer you used per hour. In some states, they are saying, hey, you're been convicted so you need to pay this much into this fund regardless of how much you may have used from that fund.
So yeah, NOT THE SAME AS A SPEEDING TICKET.
It's only the same as a speeding ticket if in addition to the speeding ticket, the system adds $100 for the safe highway program, $20 for the radar gun program, and $15 for the gas the cop used while patrolling that stretch of highway on top of your $125 speeding ticket. Oh and by the way, that $135 on top of your ticket? It's been gathering interest from the moment the cop wrote the ticket.
Have a nice day.
I get its not about a speeding ticket- I was trying to draw a conclusion that if someone who was poor should pay less for court fees than others, then what about other areas of the law? Which proved my point. That poster thought they should pay the same. Just to answer you back. In the example you gave, would increasing the ticket total to $270 be any different instead of breaking the costs up separately? I feel like that is what will happen then. All the "fees" will be lumped into one cost. Isn't the point to punish and rehab to stop you from doing it again?
I think people are forgetting that NOONE MADE THEM COMMIT THE CRIME (excluding causes of the innocent, etc). It was their choice to commit the crime.Why should anyone else have to pay for their punishment? As others have already stated, our system is financially and theoretically broke. There is no money to keep the system a float. Other than charging criminals, what other way can draw income for the system? The article have a quote that it was costing $70 a day to have them in jail for 10 days which was wasteful. What would be the alternative then? Not have you receive a punishment for your crime?
Like I've stated before, I believe some repayment/fees are appropriate because it's part of the sentence. But with that said, there should be reform on resources available to pay, shouldn't need available funds up front, and shouldn't charge interest during a jail sentence and for a period after they get out (say 1 year so they can get on their feet). Everyone can pay something-say $10 a month for someone who has income. If you don't like it, then don't commit a crime. If you don't want to go to jail, you don't commit a crime. And if the convicted doesn't pay for costs, then who should?
No, no, no. We as voters made the choice to criminalize the behavior. We as taxpayers should fund the penal system. If our courthouses are broke, it's time for us to reevaluate our priorities.
We can either: 1. Decide we are spending too much on the criminal justice system and repeal or revise some laws 2. Decide we like our current level of protection, and vote to raise taxes to fund that
That's how it works. You want public safety, you have to pay for it. You don't get it for free.
I actually don't have a problem with some fees associated with the penal system. A fee for the breathalyzer in your car because you have DUIs? I don't have a problem with that. You can still work while under this punishment and those ignition interlock devices don't fall out of the sky for free. I have a problem with prison fees or fees associated with keeping you tethered to your house because you can't be employed while under this punishment structure. These fees seem unfair and just feeds into the recidivism problem. The PD fees? Okay with small ones maybe. Maybe.
Bottom line though, I understand why these fees are happening. You can't mutilate the courts budget and not expect them to seek money through other lawful if ethically questionable channels.
I get its not about a speeding ticket- I was trying to draw a conclusion that if someone who was poor should pay less for court fees than others, then what about other areas of the law? Which proved my point. That poster thought they should pay the same. Just to answer you back. In the example you gave, would increasing the ticket total to $270 be any different instead of breaking the costs up separately? I feel like that is what will happen then. All the "fees" will be lumped into one cost. Isn't the point to punish and rehab to stop you from doing it again?
I think people are forgetting that NOONE MADE THEM COMMIT THE CRIME (excluding causes of the innocent, etc). It was their choice to commit the crime.Why should anyone else have to pay for their punishment? As others have already stated, our system is financially and theoretically broke. There is no money to keep the system a float. Other than charging criminals, what other way can draw income for the system? The article have a quote that it was costing $70 a day to have them in jail for 10 days which was wasteful. What would be the alternative then? Not have you receive a punishment for your crime?
Like I've stated before, I believe some repayment/fees are appropriate because it's part of the sentence. But with that said, there should be reform on resources available to pay, shouldn't need available funds up front, and shouldn't charge interest during a jail sentence and for a period after they get out (say 1 year so they can get on their feet). Everyone can pay something-say $10 a month for someone who has income. If you don't like it, then don't commit a crime. If you don't want to go to jail, you don't commit a crime. And if the convicted doesn't pay for costs, then who should?
No, no, no. We as voters made the choice to criminalize the behavior. We as taxpayers should fund the penal system. If our courthouses are broke, it's time for us to reevaluate our priorities.
We can either: 1. Decide we are spending too much on the criminal justice system and repeal or revise some laws 2. Decide we like our current level of protection, and vote to raise taxes to fund that
That's how it works. You want public safety, you have to pay for it. You don't get it for free.
I'm sorry, but you can't blame taxpayers for thinking murder or B&E is wrong. If we didn't have laws, then anarchy would rise. As taxpayers we already pay to ensure public safety. We pay lawmakers to make the laws and police to enforce them. Now it's each individuals responsibility to ensure their role in public safety- you don't break the law. If someone chooses to not follow standards and laws that I've paid for to ensure my safety, then you should pay. Taxpayers are still paying for costs in their conviction. Fees that are given are not all inclusive of all costs but helps offset the burden on taxpayers. Which can then free up more funds for other rehab programs or reformation of the system. One argument is that the poor can't pay these fines. But by raising taxes to cover conviction expenses, it will still hurt them financially.
I agree we need to revise laws and or punishment for them. But I have to say, there's a lot of laws I agree with. But the punishment for them, not so much.
No, no, no. We as voters made the choice to criminalize the behavior. We as taxpayers should fund the penal system. If our courthouses are broke, it's time for us to reevaluate our priorities.
We can either: 1. Decide we are spending too much on the criminal justice system and repeal or revise some laws 2. Decide we like our current level of protection, and vote to raise taxes to fund that
That's how it works. You want public safety, you have to pay for it. You don't get it for free.
I'm sorry, but you can't blame taxpayers for thinking murder or B&E is wrong. If we didn't have laws, then anarchy would rise. As taxpayers we already pay to ensure public safety. We pay lawmakers to make the laws and police to enforce them. Now it's each individuals responsibility to ensure their role in public safety- you don't break the law. If someone chooses to not follow standards and laws that I've paid for to ensure my safety, then you should pay. Taxpayers are still paying for costs in their conviction. Fees that are given are not all inclusive of all costs but helps offset the burden on taxpayers. Which can then free up more funds for other rehab programs or reformation of the system. One argument is that the poor can't pay these fines. But by raising taxes to cover conviction expenses, it will still hurt them financially.
I agree we need to revise laws and or punishment for them. But I have to say, there's a lot of laws I agree with. But the punishment for them, not so much.
Of course I think voters should enact sound public safety and criminal laws, and penalize murderers, etc. But voters shouldn't get to enlarge the pool of people they charge with crimes by pushing the costs of those crimes on to the criminals. They should make decisions about public safety and costs. They want to lock up murderers for life, which is understandable. Nobody wants to be murdered. So we pay for those things. We pay for life sentences and for lawyers and all the things needed to reduce the risk that we are murdered.
Now, what about drug crimes? Do we want to pay for drug crimes? If we aren't willing to foot the bill, they aren't worth it to us a matter of public safety.
In other words, the solution isn't to continue to criminalize things that you don't want to pay for and just shift the costs on to them, it's to make choices about what to do with a finite pool of resources.
By pushing the costs on the "criminal", what is to stop society from criminalizing more things? Why not criminalize speeding? Why not criminalize jaywalking? Or any other thing that risks public safety? Those things aren't crimes now not because those things aren't a threat to public safety, it's because they aren't enough of a threat to public safety to justify the higher expense that will come along with treating them like a crime. Your approach would have all sorts of routine shit become criminalized. Those will power will be able to get ridicilous laws passed to hurt those without power. Home owners associations will get laws passed criminalizing violations of the charter, since nobody will have to pay for the punishment of the person who strung up colored Christmas lights. I mean, it will be never ending.
I'm sorry, but you can't blame taxpayers for thinking murder or B&E is wrong. If we didn't have laws, then anarchy would rise. As taxpayers we already pay to ensure public safety. We pay lawmakers to make the laws and police to enforce them. Now it's each individuals responsibility to ensure their role in public safety- you don't break the law. If someone chooses to not follow standards and laws that I've paid for to ensure my safety, then you should pay. Taxpayers are still paying for costs in their conviction. Fees that are given are not all inclusive of all costs but helps offset the burden on taxpayers. Which can then free up more funds for other rehab programs or reformation of the system. One argument is that the poor can't pay these fines. But by raising taxes to cover conviction expenses, it will still hurt them financially.
I agree we need to revise laws and or punishment for them. But I have to say, there's a lot of laws I agree with. But the punishment for them, not so much.
Of course I think voters should enact sound public safety and criminal laws, and penalize murderers, etc. But voters shouldn't get to enlarge the pool of people they charge with crimes by pushing the costs of those crimes on to the criminals. They should make decisions about public safety and costs. They want to lock up murderers for life, which is understandable. Nobody wants to be murdered. So we pay for those things. We pay for life sentences and for lawyers and all the things needed to reduce the risk that we are murdered.
Now, what about drug crimes? Do we want to pay for drug crimes? If we aren't willing to foot the bill, they aren't worth it to us a matter of public safety.
In other words, the solution isn't to continue to criminalize things that you don't want to pay for and just shift the costs on to them, it's to make choices about what to do with a finite pool of resources.
By pushing the costs on the "criminal", what is to stop society from criminalizing more things? Why not criminalize speeding? Why not criminalize jaywalking? Or any other thing that risks public safety? Those things aren't crimes now not because those things aren't a threat to public safety, it's because they aren't enough of a threat to public safety to justify the higher expense that will come along with treating them like a crime. Your approach would have all sorts of routine shit become criminalized. Those will power will be able to get ridicilous laws passed to hurt those without power. Home owners associations will get laws passed criminalizing violations of the charter, since nobody will have to pay for the punishment of the person who strung up colored Christmas lights. I mean, it will be never ending.
:::swoon:::
My girl crush on you probably freaks you out, but I love reading your responses to these types of things.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Speeding is a crime (infraction; as is any traffic violation, unless it's a felony or misdemeanor) in Ca and the fines are very high! The red light camera stuff is actually pretty interesting as many cities have installed those as revenue generators (maybe not explicitly)! It's not w/out controversy. But the idea that society fills the public coffers on the backs of criminals is not new or novel.