Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Equal protection unchained..! Equal protection unchained..!

04-29-2014 , 04:26 AM
Speeding down the highway as I often do, my mind tends to wander toward the topic of speeding tickets.

You see, I don't speed because I have anywhere that I'm running late to, or because I enjoy the thrill of law breaking or going fast. I speed because if I don't I'll likely be rear-ended by one of the 99% of the other drives on the highway speeding. Normally I drive about 3-4 mph over the speed limit, since it's nearly impossible to get a ticket at that speed, but others around here routinely do 10-15 mph over or higher.

Anyhow, it's been over a decade since I've received a speeding ticket, and I doubt I'll get one any time soon. But what strikes me is how, like most other parts of the legal system, fines for speeding do not equally affect speeders.

Sure, we have other rules, like x moving violations and you lose your license. But I can't help feel like fines should be on a sliding scale. Maybe set it at 1/10th or 1/20th of your monthly net salary, adjusting for severity of the offense.

This would have the benefit of no longer being an undue burden to low-wage or under-employed workers, but also make speeding tickets actually mean something to that BMW driver who just whizzed by doing 90.

Additionally, do away with this "letting people off with a warning" crap. If officer selection of who to let off is at all similar to the mental requirements judges use to dole out sentencing severity, then whites and women are being spared at a higher rate than minorities and men.

Which brings me to another point: sentencing. Judges have shown that they simply cannot separate the gender or race of the accused from their sentence. It is time to separate the sentencer from the sentencee.

This could be done any number of way. Have the judge write up the facts of the case but leave any identifying characteristics out of the write-up (gender, race, name, etc) and have someone else pass sentence based solely on the facts of the case. Or possibly have the defendant testify remotely and leave out identifying characteristics by some other means.

Anyhow, it seems pretty clear that equal protection a joke, and I'm curious what other folks think of these ideas, or what other ideas they have.
04-29-2014 , 06:15 AM
I think Obama should make National Bikini DAy a Federal Holiday. Na he's too much of a pussy. FU Obama.
04-29-2014 , 06:31 AM
I want to play Roonil heads up on Bovada
04-29-2014 , 06:32 AM
and Wookie as well
04-29-2014 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roonil Wazlib
But I can't help feel like fines should be on a sliding scale. Maybe set it at 1/10th or 1/20th of your monthly net salary, adjusting for severity of the offense.
Move to Finland imo:
Quote:
In Finland, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver's income. The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades: When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor. Indeed, sliding-scale financial penalties are also imposed for offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities-law violations. "This is a Nordic tradition," says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior. "We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments. So the more you earn, the more you pay."
04-29-2014 , 01:53 PM
I also often drive slow, usually 5 under the speed limit. The perks of country roads.

      
m