I didn't say you're advocating jail time.  I'm saying THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.  The man who stole the $2.00 beer?  He got 60 days of jail time because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracking device.  Surely that cost the taxpayers more than the $200 in fines that he paid.  Not to mention more than the administrative costs.

 

A graduated penalty makes more sense than the system we have.  Because the system we have right now is costing those who don't have the money more.

 


So you've never sped?

Sure, all the time. People should rise up against this kind of government tyranny, but they cant be bothered so they let themselves be taken advantage of when they do break our overreaching, overbearing laws. THEN they [BLEEP] about it. Hence my less than empathic response.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I didn't say you're advocating jail time.  I'm saying THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.  The man who stole the $2.00 beer?  He got 60 days of jail time because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracking device.  Surely that cost the taxpayers more than the $200 in fines that he paid.  Not to mention more than the administrative costs.

 

A graduated penalty makes more sense than the system we have.  Because the system we have right now is costing those who don't have the money more.

 

So you've never sped?

 

I have zero sympathy for a thief,  stealing is stealing I don't care how small the item. He stole beer and got caught, that's not making a mistake it's a conscious decision to take what is not yours from someone else trying to earn a living.

 

So no, I don't care if it cost him another $200 in fines because he couldn't pay the $75 fee. Maybe if he wasn't a thief and spent more time trying to earn a living instead of steeling beer he could pay the $75 fee, not my problem.

---

I have zero sympathy for a thief,  stealing is stealing I don't care how small the item. He stole beer and got caught, that's not making a mistake it's a conscious decision to take what is not yours from someone else trying to earn a living.

 

So no, I don't care if it cost him another $200 in fines because he couldn't pay the $75 fee. Maybe if he wasn't a thief and spent more time trying to earn a living instead of steeling beer he could pay the $75 fee, not my problem.

 

Do you even read a word I say, or do you just react the way you want things to be?

 

Let's go over your logic.

 

-No sympathy for a thief!  Stealing isn't a mistake!

Yes, stealing is a mistake that people make.  Just because you've never been in a situation in which you felt the need to steal something (which is, btw a misdemeanor, and one that is not supposed to carry jail time)  doesn't mean that it isn't a mistake. People aren't perfect.  I think they teach this somewhere.... 

 

-He should have gotten a job!

Don't see what the point of this is, other than to try to paint poor people as criminals and/or lazy.  Nevermind the man was obviously in a desperate situation, and was selling his blood to try to make ends meet.  

 

-You don't care that it cost him $200 more in fines

Okay, one... you obviously haven't been reading my posts, or you're misunderstanding them.  Because the fine for stealing the beer was $200.00

He got the $75 fee for an ankle bracelet, because he couldn't pay his $200.00

He racked up $1000 -- 5x the original amount in fines

And that's perfectly okay with you, but a graduated system?  Oh heaven's no.  We can't do that.

 

-You've also yet to address the cost to taxpayers

--Cost of Sixty days in jail for this man being unable to pay $200:  Very High

--Cost of creating a payment plan for him to be able to pay his fine: Much lower

--Putting him in jail for sixty days because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracker? Also Unconstitutional.  But who cares, the man's a thief.  

 

So you'd rather spend more money on him spending time in jail for not paying his fines (thus costing the taxpayer more) than postpone his fee or create a payment plan that would allow him to pay it off which would cost the taxpayer less.


Wow.  I mean, I thought the Libertarian viewpoint couldn't become even more befuddling, but it just did.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I have zero sympathy for a thief,  stealing is stealing I don't care how small the item. He stole beer and got caught, that's not making a mistake it's a conscious decision to take what is not yours from someone else trying to earn a living.

 

So no, I don't care if it cost him another $200 in fines because he couldn't pay the $75 fee. Maybe if he wasn't a thief and spent more time trying to earn a living instead of steeling beer he could pay the $75 fee, not my problem.

So your concern for laws, society, government and the liberty of citizens end when someone commits any kind of crime? 

---

So your concern for laws, society, government and the liberty of citizens end when someone commits any kind of crime?

His liberty isn't being violated he commuted a crime, that has consequences. He failed to pay the fine associated so the consequences increased.


Equal liberty means equal responsibility. Start making exemptions the poor get lesser punishment for committing a crime because it's harder on them financially and watch what happens to society.

---

His liberty isn't being violated he commuted a crime, that has consequences. He failed to pay the fine associated so the consequences increased.


Equal liberty means equal responsibility. Start making exemptions the poor get lesser punishment for committing a crime because it's harder on them financially and watch what happens to society.

We are not talking about exemptions. We are talking about farming out the fines for the crimes to private business to then charge even more than original fine and in the process make a profit while raising the penalties imposed by the law. The law imposed the fines. A private enterprise has no business in artificially increasing those rates in a scheme to pocket cash. How can you not possibly be against that? How is that not corrupt?

---

Do you even read a word I say, or do you just react the way you want things to be?


Let's go over your logic.


-No sympathy for a thief! Stealing isn't a mistake!

Yes, stealing is a mistake that people make. Just because you've never been in a situation in which you felt the need to steal something (which is, btw a misdemeanor, and one that is not supposed to carry jail time) doesn't mean that it isn't a mistake. People aren't perfect. I think they teach this somewhere....


-He should have gotten a job!

Don't see what the point of this is, other than to try to paint poor people as criminals and/or lazy. Nevermind the man was obviously in a desperate situation, and was selling his blood to try to make ends meet.


-You don't care that it cost him $200 more in fines

Okay, one... you obviously haven't been reading my posts, or you're misunderstanding them. Because the fine for stealing the beer was $200.00

He got the $75 fee for an ankle bracelet, because he couldn't pay his $200.00

He racked up $1000 -- 5x the original amount in fines

And that's perfectly okay with you, but a graduated system? Oh heaven's no. We can't do that.


-You've also yet to address the cost to taxpayers

--Cost of Sixty days in jail for this man being unable to pay $200: Very High

--Cost of creating a payment plan for him to be able to pay his fine: Much lower

--Putting him in jail for sixty days because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracker? Also Unconstitutional. But who cares, the man's a thief.


So you'd rather spend more money on him spending time in jail for not paying his fines (thus costing the taxpayer more) than postpone his fee or create a payment plan that would allow him to pay it off which would cost the taxpayer less.


Wow. I mean, I thought the Libertarian viewpoint couldn't become even more befuddling, but it just did.

First the issue with a private company assessing a fee for a monitoring bracelet this is because he failed to pay the fine after committing theft. You claim we should either extend his ability to pay, forgive his debt, or offer him a lesser penalty. To me that is ludicrous your suggesting a system that rewards bad behavior with lesser penalty because of financial status. Secondly the private company using a monitoring bracelet is being contracted to manage a citizen because they have already violated the law. In the real world when a citizen violates the law ( I'm not even discussing if the law should exist here) they face penalties, those penalties are either collected and executed by the state or subcontracted to third parties. At this point said citizen isn't an innocent victim they are paying for the violation of law. You say prison should be avoided well the monitoring bracelet is the alternative. This guy then continues to not pay the fines this is AFTER he committed a crime, failed to pay the fine, failed to pay the fee for monitoring in substitution of jail time, and then failed to pay the fees for an extended period of time. That's four strikes and your surprised he goes to jail after that?

---

We are not talking about exemptions. We are talking about farming out the fines for the crimes to private business to then charge even more than original fine and in the process make a profit while raising the penalties imposed by the law. The law imposed the fines. A private enterprise has no business in artificially increasing those rates in a scheme to pocket cash. How can you not possibly be against that? How is that not corrupt?

If the citizens pay the fines owed to the state for the citation the company is never involved. The "farming" out is the management of the non-payers. Essentially the third party is a collection agency with muscle.

---

First the issue with a private company assessing a fee for a monitoring bracelet this is because he failed to pay the fine after committing theft. You claim we should either extend his ability to pay, forgive his debt, or offer him a lesser penalty. To me that is ludicrous your suggesting a system that rewards bad behavior with lesser penalty because of financial status. Secondly the private company using a monitoring bracelet is being contracted to manage a citizen because they have already violated the law. In the real world when a citizen violates the law ( I'm not even discussing if the law should exist here) they face penalties, those penalties are either collected and executed by the state or subcontracted to third parties. At this point said citizen isn't an innocent victim they are paying for the violation of law. You say prison should be avoided well the monitoring bracelet is the alternative. This guy then continues to not pay the fines this is AFTER he committed a crime, failed to pay the fine, failed to pay the fee for monitoring in substitution of jail time, and then failed to pay the fees for an extended period of time. That's four strikes and your surprised he goes to jail after that?

 

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  


(It seems to always work when you yell it, so I'm giving it a try)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  

(It seems to always work when you yell it, so I'm giving it a try)

No its not.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  


(It seems to always work when you yell it, so I'm giving it a try)

 

on what grounds? 

---

on what grounds? 

Bearden v Georgia 1983.  

 

•  If a State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely because he lacked the resources to pay it
  
   
  

FYI: it was a 9-0 decision, and I'd imagine 9 US Supreme Court Justices know a bit about the constitution.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Bearden v Georgia 1983.

• If a State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely because he lacked the resources to pay it

FYI: it was a 9-0 decision, and I'd imagine 9 US Supreme Court Justices know a bit about the constitution.

Your point is interesting but debatable, your failing to acknowledge that case was in reference to debtors prison, secondly that the Supreme Court left the willful ability to pay open to interpretations of individual judges thus nullifying your claim these imprisonments are unconstitutional. Also the prison sentence could simply be a contempt of court charge for not paying court ordered fines that would make them absolutely constitutional.

---

Your point is interesting but debatable, your failing to acknowledge that case was in reference to debtors prison, secondly that the Supreme Court left the willful ability to pay open to interpretations of individual judges thus nullifying your claim these impressment are unconstitutional.

 

 

 

The question in this case is whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from revoking an indigent defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and restitution. Its resolution involves a delicate balance between the acceptability, and indeed wisdom, of considering all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence for an individual and the impermissibility of imprisoning a defendant solely because of his lack of financial resources. We conclude that the trial court erred in automatically revoking probation because petitioner could not pay his fine, without determining that petitioner had not made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay or that adequate alternative forms of punishment did not exist. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals upholding the revocation of probation, and remand for a new sentencing determination.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I mean heck, even if you disagree with postponing payment, or a payment system:


What about community service?  In lieu of a fine that can't be paid, community service as a punishment.  As opposed to handing it off to a private company, who then takes a $41 seatbelt ticket, and turns it into hundreds of dollars of profits for themselves.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Debtors prisons were outlawed in the United States nearly 200 years ago. And more than 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear: Judges cannot send people to jail just because they are too poor to pay their court fines.


That decision came in a 1983 case called Bearden v. Georgia, which held that a judge must first consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay but "willfully" refuses


http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629

---

I mean heck, even if you disagree with postponing payment, or a payment system:


What about community service? In lieu of a fine that can't be paid, community service as a punishment. As opposed to handing it off to a private company, who then takes a $41 seatbelt ticket, and turns it into hundreds of dollars of profits for themselves.

I'm not disagreeing there's better ways to handle the situation. In saying I don't find the use of third parties immoral, unethical or unconstitutional.

---

So you don't find this unethical:


 

 

 

Hali Wood is 17. She's applied to work at several grocery stores in her home town of Columbiana, but none are hiring. A few months back, cops ticketed Hali for not wearing a seat belt. The fine: $41. Hali has paid $41 and then some, but she's still hundreds of dollars in debt. Why? Because the court contracts with JCS, a for-profit probation company that forces Hali to choose between paying their exorbitant fees and going to jail.

<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Borrowing from the payday lender playbook, companies like JCS often sign contracts in cities and counties strapped for cash. For the county, the deal seems like a sweet one: The company will collect outstanding court debts for free and make all their profits from charging probationers fees. But the problem is that many of these people were put on probation because they were too poor to pay their fine in the first place and for them, the additional fees are huge. People find themselves scrambling for money they don't have and forgoing basic necessities to avoid being thrown behind bars for missing a payment. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So you don't find this unethical:

No she was given an option pay the fine or face the consequences. Now if you want to fault someone fault the system requiring seat belt laws in the first place

---

No she was given an option pay the fine or face the consequences. Now if you want to fault someone fault the system requiring seat belt laws in the first place

 

Even for minors?

---

;

;