IDS 2: IDS Fine Act (Passed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Dereich

[Dereich]

This is based on the mostly Finnish-used Day Fine. The idea behind it is to make fines a legitimate punishment for courts to use; a multi-millionaire probably wouldn't mind a $500 speeding fine, but the risk of a $100,000 dollar fine might make them consider not speeding a little harder.

Part 3 is mostly unrelated, but there have been a few studies suggesting that combining fines and imprisonment cause lower recidivism rates than just using imprisonment, so I thought it was worth discussing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think this is a wise move. The present setup is regressive and of course contributes to the rich and invincibles false sense of invincibility.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I support this.  I remember passing a similar policy in the Northeast.

Is this only for non-violent offenses or for all offenses?

You didn't win reelection last week...

[Dereich]

Its meant for all offenses; if pressed I'd say it could actually be a better policy for non-violent rather than violent crimes, just because of how prison focused violent crime sentencing is.

As for Deadprez, who said he doesn't know he's still in the legislature? Citizens have been active in commenting on what we do in the past, its not like its discouraged or anything.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support this.  I remember passing a similar policy in the Northeast.

Is this only for non-violent offenses or for all offenses?

You didn't win reelection last week...

Are former legislators forbidden from participating in discussion?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nevermind... my mistake.

[Donerail]

I'd be alright with this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is fine with me. Often times, the wealthy are not hurt by criminal or civil fines, whereas the poor take a larger hit. A $100 fine may not be much to someone, but it is to a poor.

How would we determine income though? Tax returns?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Is this only for non-violent offenses or for all offenses?

     My reading of it would suggest that it applies to all offenses.

[Dereich]

This is fine with me. Often times, the wealthy are not hurt by criminal or civil fines, whereas the poor take a larger hit. A $100 fine may not be much to someone, but it is to a poor.

How would we determine income though? Tax returns?

That's right. I'd assume we'd do what Finland does and use the monthly income from the previous year's tax returns to determine the fee.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Something similar came before the senate a couple years ago. I didn't support it because I was afraid that police officers would unfairly target rich people in order to "meet quota." For example, it would likely be more worthwhile to pull over someone who is speeding in a Jaguar than someone who's speeding in a 15-year-old Toyota. Since fines have the dual purpose of punishing misdemeanors as well as generating revenue, I have a hard time supporting something that will force certain people to pay more for the same offense.

[Dereich]

Something similar came before the senate a couple years ago. I didn't support it because I was afraid that police officers would unfairly target rich people in order to "meet quota." For example, it would likely be more worthwhile to pull over someone who is speeding in a Jaguar than someone who's speeding in a 15-year-old Toyota. Since fines have the dual purpose of punishing misdemeanors as well as generating revenue, I have a hard time supporting something that will force certain people to pay more for the same offense.

That's true; I hadn't even considered the revenue implications. Still, I think this is the best solution to the problem of fines not being anywhere near large enough to be an effective deterrent. Thinking about it, the additional revenue could be a very good thing for local governments and would probably lead to lower property taxes or more spending in most area.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

At the expense of systematic corruption?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There's an easy answer to the incentive problem: Don't use fines as a source of revenue. Destroy the money or send it away.

That's a nice idea in a vaccuum, but who's going to destroy money that could otherwise be used on programs to help people?

[Associate Justice PiT]

There's an easy answer to the incentive problem: Don't use fines as a source of revenue. Destroy the money or send it away.

That's a nice idea in a vaccuum, but who's going to destroy money that could otherwise be used on programs to help people?

You don't have to go as far as destroying it, although in terms of structuring incentives that would be ideal. Just separate the benefits from whoever is enforcing the law. This could be as simple as sending the money to the region's general fund.

     It would still be a source of revenue then, just in a less direct sense. I suppose we could donate it to charity or something.

[Dereich]

How about having the money redistributed to local governments by population size? I'm of the opinion that the money should end up with the local governments; they have too few good ways for raising revenue as it is.

[Donerail]

How about having the money redistributed to local governments by population size? I'm of the opinion that the money should end up with the local governments; they have too few good ways for raising revenue as it is.

Except that's the issue Nix raises - then it goes directly to the treasury of the people who pay the salaries of most law enforcement officials. I support the charity option, though I worry about the possibility of it going to a corrupt charity (ex: I give it to a 501(c)(3) backing my re-election).

[Dereich]

How about having the money redistributed to local governments by population size? I'm of the opinion that the money should end up with the local governments; they have too few good ways for raising revenue as it is.

Except that's the issue Nix raises - then it goes directly to the treasury of the people who pay the salaries of most law enforcement officials. I support the charity option, though I worry about the possibility of it going to a corrupt charity (ex: I give it to a 501(c)(3) backing my re-election).

I don't think it'd cause the same problem; if you redistributed the money by population any individual area being extra aggressive would only get a tiny fraction of the extra revenue.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'll admit, this is all over my head. I don't know how to best handle this.

[Dereich]

Well we've got to choose something; I think I've made where I stand clear, do any other legislators have an opinion on how we should amend this?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What are the options to chose from? I'm not getting a clear picture from the current debate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm not sure. Duke's dilemma is basically what led me to stick with the status quo when we were voting on this in the senate.

[Dereich]

Well, from what I understand from things like this and this what currently seems to happen is that a surcharge is granted to the state and the rest goes to local authorities, often to supplement law enforcement and judiciary costs.

[Flake]

Well we've got to choose something; I think I've made where I stand clear, do any other legislators have an opinion on how we should amend this?

I'm in full support of this bill.