Quote:You're all over the place, I have a problem with Civil Forfeiture but that's a completely different topic.

 

What you're saying is if people can't afford to pay the fine, then they should be given an extension at no cost to them (there is always cost associated, so really what you're saying is at the cost of the tax payers because they fund the state). However if they can't prove it's a financial hardship then it's ok to rack up more fee's.

 

The whole anchor and oil change analogy doesn't really work, getting a citation is a result of personal irresponsibility, albeit I'd agree many of the times the reasons for citations are ludicrous but again that's a different discussion. So when someone gets a citation why is it the rest of societies responsibility to finance there needing to prolong repayment? The additional cost might be minimum sure but why is it the rest of societies responsibility? That's why I don't have a problem with private companies paying the bill and then holding the individuals who received the citation responsible.

 

Really it's as simple as you stated in the op, can't pay the fine don't get citations.

 

So you'd rather they cost the tax payers... thousands of dollars to keep someone in jail for 60 days, then an administrative fees that would be used to postpone a payment"


No, it's not as simple as "Can't pay the fine, don't get citations"


I mean otherwise that argument would also go toward "Fines should be based on how much you make."


You make $200,000/year, and don't want to pay a high fine?  Do the speed limit!  It's that simple.


The fact is the system we have gives police incentives to go after poor people (and particularly black people)

---