Police! Can someone explain to me where in the hell all the money goes from people paying speeding tickets? I got to look at a cities traffic ticket pile for one night, about 10 20k in tickets allocated on a monday night from a population of 87.ooo people.
I have been told by several officers that the money is used for school books within the city. Hmm, kinda funny considering my younger sister (9 years younger) showed me her book once from the 6th grade and there were names of people who I went to school with.
Cmon! where does this money go? 26.50 for court costs, but the other 50 dollars and up?
Why are people paying money for court costs? Doesnt our taxes pay for that?
lies! Lies! LIes! LIEs! LIES!
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
in LA they have some tax i think they call it the state assment tax or something. it covers the deficit between court costs and fines collected... was 171% in 1997...
for your standard !insurance ticket which was $1000 you had to play a $2700 fine. course didnt matter cuz on the 2 days I was in court the judge stayed $900 of the $1000 fine (contingent on the person going out and getting insurance then coming back and proving it) reducing the out of pocket to $270 for every single person cept one guy who did it 3x already.
I believe the fines are set by the legislature and are carefully controlled... however the real actual fine is 171% higher even though they call it a "state assement fee." I don't know, the whole system just looks like bullshit to me.
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
[This message has been edited by kiryan (edited 10-12-2002).]
for your standard !insurance ticket which was $1000 you had to play a $2700 fine. course didnt matter cuz on the 2 days I was in court the judge stayed $900 of the $1000 fine (contingent on the person going out and getting insurance then coming back and proving it) reducing the out of pocket to $270 for every single person cept one guy who did it 3x already.
I believe the fines are set by the legislature and are carefully controlled... however the real actual fine is 171% higher even though they call it a "state assement fee." I don't know, the whole system just looks like bullshit to me.
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
[This message has been edited by kiryan (edited 10-12-2002).]
-
Grungar
- Sojourner
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Somewhere on the east coast, usually.
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by moritheil:
<B>Police depts are actually looked at as a source of revenue for states.
No joke.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*coughcoughtheCarolinascoughcough*
- Grungar "No, my sister don't got a purdy mouf" Forgefire
<B>Police depts are actually looked at as a source of revenue for states.
No joke.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*coughcoughtheCarolinascoughcough*
- Grungar "No, my sister don't got a purdy mouf" Forgefire
"Why are people paying money for court costs? Doesn't our taxes pay for that?"
I fail to see why my tax dollars should go to pay for someone else's illegal actions. Police Depts. should be a source of revenue, as long as they don't use quotas. The more speeders they catch(let's face it almost everyone speeds), the less txes I'll be paying.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
I fail to see why my tax dollars should go to pay for someone else's illegal actions. Police Depts. should be a source of revenue, as long as they don't use quotas. The more speeders they catch(let's face it almost everyone speeds), the less txes I'll be paying.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
I wish i could find a link to the news article. I read a few years back about a man who would drive down some major highways in philadelphia with a sign on his car that said "I am driving the speed limit." Indeed, he would drive exactly at the speed limit. He drove so dangerously slow that a few car accidents were narrowly avoided, and he saw many middle fingers.
Result: Everyone in philadelphia is a lawbreaker. Since the police can pull over anyone on the road it would stand to reason that they would target cars that they find suspicious for other reasons. Like for instance, if the cop believes black people are more likely to use illegal drugs, he might be more apt to pull over black drivers than white drivers for speeding. So basically, criminalizing the entire populace is an excellent way to get around such inconveniant things like civil rights and the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
But then again, Raursh would rather his taxes be lowered...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Result: Everyone in philadelphia is a lawbreaker. Since the police can pull over anyone on the road it would stand to reason that they would target cars that they find suspicious for other reasons. Like for instance, if the cop believes black people are more likely to use illegal drugs, he might be more apt to pull over black drivers than white drivers for speeding. So basically, criminalizing the entire populace is an excellent way to get around such inconveniant things like civil rights and the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
But then again, Raursh would rather his taxes be lowered...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth, you sure do draw strange conclusions. Let's see, I ask why I should have to pay the court costs of people who speed, and you think im asking to lower the speed limit to 20 to pay my taxes. Quite a stretch. I particularly enjoy the transition from my taxes to the population of Philadelphia's civil rights. Direct link there.
When I said police dept. should be used as a source of revenue I did not mean that they should be activly seeking profits. What I ment was that tickets issued should be most than just the cost of the courts, police officer's time, maintenice on his squad car, etc. Tack on some extra, in proportion to the crime, to the fine as a determent factor. Use this extra for things that otherwise would be paid for by your taxes. Perhaps this line of resaoning is less squiggly to you.
It was not the man driving the speed limit that almost caused those accidents. It was the people breaking the law by driving too fast. At no time is a persons need for Denny's food greater than another persons safety.
I speed all the time on the interstates and highways. Usualy 5 to 10 over. I respect other peoples choice for driving slower. I try very hard to not speed through any residential areas because it's not worth the risk. If I were to get a ticket, I would pay it without complaint knowing I was in the wrong.
Should the speed limit be raised on most interstates and some highways? Absolutely. I remember another news article where several semi's drove the speed limit side by side down a freeway. Traffic was backed up for hours and hours. But this dosen't mean you get to ignore them without consequence of accidents or tickets.
Why don't we make at least an attempt to stay on topic and leave racial profiling and civil liberties for another.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
When I said police dept. should be used as a source of revenue I did not mean that they should be activly seeking profits. What I ment was that tickets issued should be most than just the cost of the courts, police officer's time, maintenice on his squad car, etc. Tack on some extra, in proportion to the crime, to the fine as a determent factor. Use this extra for things that otherwise would be paid for by your taxes. Perhaps this line of resaoning is less squiggly to you.
It was not the man driving the speed limit that almost caused those accidents. It was the people breaking the law by driving too fast. At no time is a persons need for Denny's food greater than another persons safety.
I speed all the time on the interstates and highways. Usualy 5 to 10 over. I respect other peoples choice for driving slower. I try very hard to not speed through any residential areas because it's not worth the risk. If I were to get a ticket, I would pay it without complaint knowing I was in the wrong.
Should the speed limit be raised on most interstates and some highways? Absolutely. I remember another news article where several semi's drove the speed limit side by side down a freeway. Traffic was backed up for hours and hours. But this dosen't mean you get to ignore them without consequence of accidents or tickets.
Why don't we make at least an attempt to stay on topic and leave racial profiling and civil liberties for another.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rausrh:
<B>
It was not the man driving the speed limit that almost caused those accidents. It was the people breaking the law by driving too fast. At no time is a persons need for Denny's food greater than another persons safety.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats quite an assumption to make. You are basically saying that everyone who drives in philadelphia is reckless. Are you sure that they are driving too fast and that the speed limit isn't too low? I don't think you really mean it since you acknowledge that speed limits are often set too low.
When law encorcement is considered primarily a revenue collecting measure, there is an incentive to create situations where everyone (or most people) are breaking the law. This makes sense because it allows for a broader base to collect revenue from. And when everyone is a lawbreaker, the police have much discretion as to who they will enforce the law against. Since they do not have the resources to enforce the law against everyone, its likely they will choose certain types of people to enforce the law against. Is this the type of society you advocate, Raursh?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-16-2002).]
<B>
It was not the man driving the speed limit that almost caused those accidents. It was the people breaking the law by driving too fast. At no time is a persons need for Denny's food greater than another persons safety.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats quite an assumption to make. You are basically saying that everyone who drives in philadelphia is reckless. Are you sure that they are driving too fast and that the speed limit isn't too low? I don't think you really mean it since you acknowledge that speed limits are often set too low.
When law encorcement is considered primarily a revenue collecting measure, there is an incentive to create situations where everyone (or most people) are breaking the law. This makes sense because it allows for a broader base to collect revenue from. And when everyone is a lawbreaker, the police have much discretion as to who they will enforce the law against. Since they do not have the resources to enforce the law against everyone, its likely they will choose certain types of people to enforce the law against. Is this the type of society you advocate, Raursh?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-16-2002).]
"You are basically saying that everyone who drives in philadelphia is reckless."
You are reading something into what i wrote that was not there. I did not write, nor imply that all drivers in Philadelphia are reckless. I said people who almost caused those accidents were driving "too fast". You can't define "too fast". It changes with the conditions, the traffic, etc. For this example I define "too fast" as being barely able to avoid an accident with someone going the speed limit.
"When law encorcement ... choose certain types of people to enforce the law against."
Are you serously setting forth the idea that the speed limit is set too low because of some vast conspiracy between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies trying to criminalize the nation?
Racial Profiling sucks. Understand though that not all police officers believe in using it. Many are very against it. But for those officers that do use racial profiling on the job, do you really think that they wouldn't find some other way to stop minorities? Rolling stops, tail-lights, loitering, or just because they felt like it. How do you think raising the speed limit will help this? To fight racial profiling you must stop it at the source, the officers. As to how this should be done, I haven't a clue. Any ideas?
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
You are reading something into what i wrote that was not there. I did not write, nor imply that all drivers in Philadelphia are reckless. I said people who almost caused those accidents were driving "too fast". You can't define "too fast". It changes with the conditions, the traffic, etc. For this example I define "too fast" as being barely able to avoid an accident with someone going the speed limit.
"When law encorcement ... choose certain types of people to enforce the law against."
Are you serously setting forth the idea that the speed limit is set too low because of some vast conspiracy between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies trying to criminalize the nation?
Racial Profiling sucks. Understand though that not all police officers believe in using it. Many are very against it. But for those officers that do use racial profiling on the job, do you really think that they wouldn't find some other way to stop minorities? Rolling stops, tail-lights, loitering, or just because they felt like it. How do you think raising the speed limit will help this? To fight racial profiling you must stop it at the source, the officers. As to how this should be done, I haven't a clue. Any ideas?
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
A) Everyone in philadelphia drives faster than the speed limit on that particular road. By you saying that they deserve to be pulled over for going too fast, you imply that the speed limit is not the problem but that the drivers are the ones at fault. Hence, you are saying that just about everyone who drives in Philadelphia is recklessly driving too fast.
B) No conspiracy whatsoever. I dont believe there is any intent to racially discriminate by setting speed limits too low. I believe it is the unintended yet inevitable consequence of setting speed limits too low in order to collect revenue. Its fairly simple reasoning. When everyone breaks the law then each individual police officer needs to come up with some sort of criteria for determining who he will enforce the law against. Racial profiling is one of many different options at his disposal. However, ideally, the police would not have such discretion because only people driving too fast would be breaking the law.
C) I agree that racial profiling would exist even if the laws were properly written so that police discretion is limited. I don't see why this justifies making it easier for them. As the system is currently set up, an officer who is racial profiling is perfectly justified in ticketing the people he pulls over. What isn't justifiable is the criteria he uses to choose who he will ticket. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get into the mind of the officer to determine the reason he pulls over any particular driver. If he can only pull over the few people who are actually driving too fast, his options are limited. He can no longer easily pick and choose.
The point here is that laws should reflect the norms of society. If a law is made that cannot or will not be complied with, its a bad law. My conclusion is that additional revenue obtained from this particular bad law, artificially low speed limits, does not outweigh the civil rights violations that will result.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-16-2002).]
B) No conspiracy whatsoever. I dont believe there is any intent to racially discriminate by setting speed limits too low. I believe it is the unintended yet inevitable consequence of setting speed limits too low in order to collect revenue. Its fairly simple reasoning. When everyone breaks the law then each individual police officer needs to come up with some sort of criteria for determining who he will enforce the law against. Racial profiling is one of many different options at his disposal. However, ideally, the police would not have such discretion because only people driving too fast would be breaking the law.
C) I agree that racial profiling would exist even if the laws were properly written so that police discretion is limited. I don't see why this justifies making it easier for them. As the system is currently set up, an officer who is racial profiling is perfectly justified in ticketing the people he pulls over. What isn't justifiable is the criteria he uses to choose who he will ticket. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get into the mind of the officer to determine the reason he pulls over any particular driver. If he can only pull over the few people who are actually driving too fast, his options are limited. He can no longer easily pick and choose.
The point here is that laws should reflect the norms of society. If a law is made that cannot or will not be complied with, its a bad law. My conclusion is that additional revenue obtained from this particular bad law, artificially low speed limits, does not outweigh the civil rights violations that will result.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-16-2002).]
Apparently, In Washington DC they have installed several of those cameras that catch people running red lights. The mayor had long said that the purpose was to keep the streets safe. For this reason, the DC initiative was supported by the AAA. Well, now the mayor has slipped up and admitted that the primary reason he wants to expand the program is revenue. The AAA has pulled support and now it get publicized that these cameras actually can cause accidents when hesitatant drivers stop short because of them. I actually have witnessed a few near accidents at a local red light camera where people have stopped short. But I guess, when revenue is more important than safety when making safety laws, then sometimes the safety aspect will get less attention then it deserves. Heres the article:
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021017-78921861.htm
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021017-78921861.htm
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests