TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: The idea behind a fine is to represent the harm done to society by the offense.

I don't think so. A lot of fines aren't for doing things which are bad, but for doing things which are more likely to lead to something else happening which is bad. e.g. driving 80 mph down the highway isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but in certain situations the government has decided that it crosses the threshold of a higher likelihood of something bad happening (losing control of a vehicle and the more serious crash that would result due to the higher speed). But in some instances, like on I10 in west Texas, driving 80 mph is legal. There is no harm to society by merely driving 80 mph (malum prohibitum vs. malum in se). The fine is to just to dissuade people from doing the action in the first place, or to punish them and remind them not to do it in the future.

But honestly, I think the real reason in California isn't to make fines more fair, but to raise more money overall. They'll probably do something like raise the rate 10x on really high earners, raise it 1.5x on the average person, and cut it to .5x of the current rate for the poor.

Beiruty wrote:unconstitutional. Equality clause.

If that were the case, then the graduated income tax would have been found unconstitutional a long time ago.

Abraham wrote:Liberty you posted:

"Kids getting stopped, not affording the fines, getting warrants and then arrested are one of the reasons that kids have little respect for the law and those who enforce it."

Tell me you're joking, please...

Nope not kidding, I think the whole idea of revenue enhancing is a root cause of disrespect of the law enforcement community by the poorer classes. Too many of today's young adults will get a ticket, make a decision between paying the rent, buying food or paying the ticket. They take their chances and end up arrested losing even more wages. When you have a growing part of society that is viewing LEO's as the enemy maybe its time we started thinking differently.

Liberty,

We must have posted at the same time as I edited my last post, to then find you'd responded.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Me, I've always been responsible for my debts which would of course include paying a fine if I ever received one.

And, I did get one. One only in my entire life. I was roughly 26/27 I paid it in full. I was speeding and got caught.

The young have to obey the law just like the rest of us.

They don't have a 'get out of jail free' based on age.

At what point do these "young adults" take responsibility for their actions?

To me, this conversation is beginning to sound more Marxist then anything at this point. Class warfare.

I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

CleverNickname wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: The idea behind a fine is to represent the harm done to society by the offense.

I don't think so. A lot of fines aren't for doing things which are bad, but for doing things which are more likely to lead to something else happening which is bad. e.g. driving 80 mph down the highway isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but in certain situations the government has decided that it crosses the threshold of a higher likelihood of something bad happening (losing control of a vehicle and the more serious crash that would result due to the higher speed). But in some instances, like on I10 in west Texas, driving 80 mph is legal. There is no harm to society by merely driving 80 mph (malum prohibitum vs. malum in se). The fine is to just to dissuade people from doing the action in the first place, or to punish them and remind them not to do it in the future.

But honestly, I think the real reason in California isn't to make fines more fair, but to raise more money overall. They'll probably do something like raise the rate 10x on really high earners, raise it 1.5x on the average person, and cut it to .5x of the current rate for the poor.

Beiruty wrote:unconstitutional. Equality clause.

If that were the case, then the graduated income tax would have been found unconstitutional a long time ago.

Except that the graduated income tax has it's own amendment (see #16).

A criminal fine is not a tax. It's a penalty, designed to deprive you of your property (money) as punishment for an offense. The gravity of the offense is presumably considered by the legislature in assigning the amount. A graduated criminal penalty based on income or assets raises significant 5th and 14th amendment issues. It's similar to having graduated jail time based on income.

Abraham wrote:I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

But the way it works today is quite the opposite. The wealthy (ie: OJ or Durst) get away with murder. But the poor get all the justice they casn afford. Yopur wealthy bank robbing friend will likely be able to afford bail, to avoid being jailed before the trial and may likely afford the finest of legal defence While you the poor accessory will either pay a non-refundable bond or sit in jail until the trial. Your lawyer might be a an overworked public defender who is expected to do litigation on a wholesale scale. At any rate we are talking about fines for traffic violations. If one to assume that traffic enforcement is more about revenue than crime and punishment perhaps the sliding rate scale would make more sense. A $200 dollar fine just isn't the same for some as it is for others.

I think it is a valid point that subjecting everyone in traffic court to a means test would be an overstep, but I also believe the courts are stacked against the poor, and lower middle class. A justified shooting can cost how much in legal fees? What happens if one doesn't have the thousands of dollars? or even bail money? The rich can cover the bail, while the not so rich might afford to post bond ( which they lose even if they show up) those who cannot sit in jail even though we are to presume innocence.

Liberty,

No doubt, the poor who choose to remain poor will face a tougher row to hoe.

Some people think the poor are somehow noble because they're poor. They're not noble. Generally, they like being poor. Remaining poor is an excellent reason for not being responsible.

How can I possibly know this?

The vast majority of my family (and their circle of friends) to this day choose to remain poor, live on welfare, commit crimes, are terrible parents and all complain it wouldn't be that way if they weren't poor.

Wrong!

They're poor because they're lazy and enjoy being poor as a primary reason for not even remotely attempting to get ahead.

Their mantra: It's not my fault, man...I'm poor.

Will this be based on earned income (so most people will need only show a W-2) or will it include investment income? In the latter case, you'll need to show your entire federal income-tax return just to find out the amount of your traffic fine. Privacy, schmivacy.

Courts already have flexibility as to the severity of punishment.

If that isn't working on a fair basis, applied at individual trials, then a law written without regard to the merits of any individual case is supposed to be better?

ScottDLS wrote: A graduated criminal penalty based on income or assets raises significant 5th and 14th amendment issues. It's similar to having graduated jail time based on income.

It seems to me more like having graduated jail time based on age and life expectancy. Instead of giving a 12 year old thief a reduced sentence because they're a juvenile, maybe they should get double the time of a 40 year old who commits the same crime.

Abraham wrote:I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

Maybe they should treat ALL Crimes the same! Life without parole for any crime. Makes the same sense as comparing traffic laws with bank robbery.
Edited to add grin to show manner of text.

Liberty wrote:

Abraham wrote:I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

But the way it works today is quite the opposite. The wealthy (ie: OJ or Durst) get away with murder. But the poor get all the justice they casn afford. Yopur wealthy bank robbing friend will likely be able to afford bail, to avoid being jailed before the trial and may likely afford the finest of legal defence While you the poor accessory will either pay a non-refundable bond or sit in jail until the trial. Your lawyer might be a an overworked public defender who is expected to do litigation on a wholesale scale. At any rate we are talking about fines for traffic violations. If one to assume that traffic enforcement is more about revenue than crime and punishment perhaps the sliding rate scale would make more sense. A $200 dollar fine just isn't the same for some as it is for others.

I think it is a valid point that subjecting everyone in traffic court to a means test would be an overstep, but I also believe the courts are stacked against the poor, and lower middle class. A justified shooting can cost how much in legal fees? What happens if one doesn't have the thousands of dollars? or even bail money? The rich can cover the bail, while the not so rich might afford to post bond ( which they lose even if they show up) those who cannot sit in jail even though we are to presume innocence.

I do not think the OJ comparison is valid in this discussion. We are talking about the price of traffic tickets, not the ability to afford hiring a top legal team that can play the jury to win an acquittal.

If OJ was convicted and he got off lighter or his punishment was more sevier because of his financial status, your comparison may be more applicable. However, that was not the case.

The OJ comparison just doesn't help your argument in this discussion.

I can just see it in the court summons, please bring your current financial statements and previous 4 years tax returns to court so the judge can determine your penalty for your traffic infraction. That's just not American.

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Abraham wrote:I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

But the way it works today is quite the opposite. The wealthy (ie: OJ or Durst) get away with murder. But the poor get all the justice they casn afford. Yopur wealthy bank robbing friend will likely be able to afford bail, to avoid being jailed before the trial and may likely afford the finest of legal defence While you the poor accessory will either pay a non-refundable bond or sit in jail until the trial. Your lawyer might be a an overworked public defender who is expected to do litigation on a wholesale scale. At any rate we are talking about fines for traffic violations. If one to assume that traffic enforcement is more about revenue than crime and punishment perhaps the sliding rate scale would make more sense. A $200 dollar fine just isn't the same for some as it is for others.

I think it is a valid point that subjecting everyone in traffic court to a means test would be an overstep, but I also believe the courts are stacked against the poor, and lower middle class. A justified shooting can cost how much in legal fees? What happens if one doesn't have the thousands of dollars? or even bail money? The rich can cover the bail, while the not so rich might afford to post bond ( which they lose even if they show up) those who cannot sit in jail even though we are to presume innocence.

I do not think the OJ comparison is valid in this discussion. We are talking about the price of traffic tickets, not the ability to afford hiring a top legal team that can play the jury to win an acquittal.

If OJ was convicted and he got off lighter or his punishment was more sevier because of his financial status, your comparison may be more applicable. However, that was not the case.

The OJ comparison just doesn't help your argument in this discussion.

I can just see it in the court summons, please bring your current financial statements and previous 4 years tax returns to court so the judge can determine your penalty for your traffic infraction. That's just not American.

Much more than money (wealth) was involved in the OJ case, but as mojo stated I don't think the analogy of wealth and acquittal to indexing fines for traffic violations works. When I think of wealth being the deciding factor in convictions for crimes I just think of Ash Robinson, T. Cullen Davis, Robert Durst, and many more.

If income is to be used as basis for prorating penalty, I hope they are going to be balanced in application.

For instance, a rich man robs a bank, and, of course they do. Most often it's with credit default swaps or tricky tranches, not guns, but it happens.

So we scale up his penalties because he's rich - but we must never, never, never forget the victim.

If the bank has been losing money we should take that into account. Putting a loser of a bank deeper in a hole isn't as bad as taking a chunk out of an up and coming outfit.

Just sayin'.