There are many alternatives. How about day fines based on income levels? Or eliminating arrests for Class C misdemeanors? Or eliminating the Driver Responsibility surcharge. We're talking about a system with lots of moving parts and vested political interests. There will be no wholesale "alternative," only tweaks to what exists.
How about making a flow chart where one makes reasonable attempts to obey the law and if caught, they either contest it or accept responsibility for their actions? Pay the ticket (payment plans), take DDC, deferred adjudication, or community service are also options that can be requested/approved by the court.
I do not like the concept of Driver Responsibility surcharges...like I do not like red light cameras, but I try to obey the law as best I can.
We have federal programs that subsidize phones, healthcare, food, unemployment, disability, etc so I am surprised that the current administration hasn't expanded additional (general) irresponsibility to cover that of traffic law violators. The 47% Romney spoke of is likely now up to 49%.
@4:59, I think the answer is that the chart is attempting to describe what actually happens in the real world, not make excuses for systemic dysfunction. More than 10% of Texas drivers have outstanding traffic warrants - with volume that high, the problem is bigger than just people failing to accept responsibility.
You cannot "obey the law as best I can" if the law says you must pay money you do not have.
@5:11, how do you go from traffic violations to Obama and Romney? Get a life.
I think there should be a limit on how much a ticket cost. I have seen offenders with one ticket over $600! Make all tickets under $100! Don't take people to jail for not being able to pay tickets!
Minor traffic stops,like failing to signal a turn at an intersection 100 feet before the turn, have morphed from punishment to a revenue source for cities. Arresting a citizen for such offenses costs much more that a fine.
The costs of tickets are outrageous. A ticket that costs more that a minimum wage earner's daily pay, is too much money. Add to the fine the fictitious "court costs" and the sum is ridiculous. It's no longer a means to punish people for infractions, it is a means to raise money on the backs of the poor.
By raising money on the poor, I mean traffic enforcement is different depending upon where you live. In the affluent area of town where I live, there are no cops using the traffic code as a means to interdict with citizens. However, on the poorer side of town, law enforcement presence and contact is a steady thing. It is a common law enforcement strategy to use the traffic code to go fishing for other crimes. It doesn't matter that most contacts are fruiteless, the result is the same. An expensive ticket that leaves no money for either the car repair (tag light out, etc.) or payment of living expenses (versus fine, court costs, bail, etc.).
First let me say I do not agree with the driver surcharges and I do feel many fines are outrageous and a means for some localities to raise revenue. That being said, there was a time I was near homeless due to living paycheck to paycheck and being on the verge of eviction due to being behind on bills. I received traffic tickets, for offenses that I committed. Those last two words for me are the big words. I COMMITTED the offenses. I did not have the money to immediately go down and pay a lump sum to pay off the tickets. However, I did GO TO COURT see the judge and make payment arrangements. I was able to work out a payment plan that I was able to follow. I made the payments as best as I could and when I wasn't able I contacted the court and informed them of my situation and they worked with me. It took longer than expected but I was able to pay everything off with never having a warrant issued and never losing my job. As I spoke to others at court many drivers had the mentality of, "if I ignore it, it will go away." People did not take it seriously and they put themselves in bad situations. I saw people taken into custody for not appearing when summoned and not contacting the court when they missed payments. To me it appeared they just wanted to sit back and "see what happens and hope it goes away." If the driver does not put in the time and effort to address the issue then they are creating an environment where the court isn't going to work with them because they aren't working with the court. I am NOT saying this applies to everyone but it does apply to many of them. We have created a segment of society who just wants to shirk responsibility and then cry that they are a victim when they get held accountable. AGAIN THIS IS NOT EVERYONE but is many. You mentioned 10% of drivers have warrants, which is a lot of people numerically, but you didn't mention 90% of drivers don't have warrants which is even a larger number. Given the poverty rates of the state I would assume many of that 90% are poor or struggling. But they are able to maintain their DL. Again I think parts of the system are broken, but I think many people think "major" reform needs to happen, when actually the system is working for the vast majority of people. I would love to see surcharges and fines reduced and reformed, but until they are, personally I made an agreement with the state that I would obey their traffic laws when I received my ticket and I know the consequences if I don't obey and I take responsibility for my actions and their consequences. I know some people may not have the means to truly take care of their fines, but I bet it is a smaller percentage of that 10% then people think.
@Anonymous 11:36 Accepting for the sake of argument that victimless class c misdemeanors ought result in a liability to the state, why should the state have more coercive means of exacting payment than any other civil liability?
When I fail to pay for my cell phone service, I've done more harm to someone than I did when failing to signal a lane change.
Why should the state be able to put me in jail but Verizon cannot?
Neither should be able to. They should have the same recourse against my public good name (credit report) nothing more.
@Anonymous 11:36 Accepting for the sake of argument that victimless class c misdemeanors ought result in a liability to the state, why should the state have more coercive means of exacting payment than any other civil liability?
When I fail to pay for my cell phone service, I've done more harm to someone than I did when failing to signal a lane change.
Why should the state be able to put me in jail but Verizon cannot?
Neither should be able to. They should have the same recourse against my public good name (credit report) nothing more.
The claims that traffic enforcement is an exercise in harvesting great sums of money from the poor is laughable considering the truly poor don't have the money in the first place. Like it or not, a great many of the poor simply "play the game" of driving until the state takes away their TDL, then continuing to drive once released. They often do not have insurance too so when they hit your shiny newer car, shrug their shoulders and tell you "you can't get blood from a stone" as they laugh in your face before driving off, keep in mind that you will then be victimized again by your insurance company in most cases, paying more to cover the loss even when you have full coverage.
As 11:36 points out, most big cities work with those that break the law by offering payment plans or community service. As long as you show up or communicate with the court your inability to pay, they virtually all work with you but a growing number of people think it will go away if left untended, playing the odds so hand wringers can wail about the inequities of life where the mean old cops target people breaking the law, those of lesser financial means statistically more likely to have equipment violations, lack insurance or a valid driver license, or have warrants from a previous encounter.
But in Chris' narrative, Verizon will not only report you to the credit agencies but they will cut off your service and lock your expensive phone from use; something "the state" rarely does. Many would favor a law where the car you were driving would be confiscated until you paid your fines rather than the driver stuck in jail a few days. That would be a closer example to the Verizon method of doing things than anything else. But given programs for those convicted to offer community service for their fines, often at greatly inflated rates considering the lack of skills such people tend to bring to the table, it's tough for the average person to sympathize. I'm not a fan of the state surcharges myself but unless the state is going to force people to learn better driving skills like most countries do, especially those countries that use income based fines by the way, these "victim-less crimes" sure lead to a lot of roadway deaths, accidents costing many millions of dollars collectively, and cost all the responsible people a great deal more in every single way.
When I was 19 I was arrested for a class C misdemeanor driver license violation. I was booked in to jail at 11:30 pm one day receiving $50 credit for that day and released after midnight after receiving another $50 credit for the following day. The jailers declared me "time served" and let me go. What I didn't know at the time was that if I didn't petition the court for a lesser penalty such as deferred adjudication the arrest permanently stays on my record as a conviction. Over the years this "conviction" has now morphed into a conviction for Fraud. Try getting a decent job with a "Fraud" conviction on your record from almost thirty years ago.
In our area there is a stop sign (set up counter state standards) that serves only as a cash cow. One can get a deferred payment plan for a fee that would make pay day loan company envious but not if you want to contest the citation.
To my knowledge no one has been successful in contesting the 'trap' but more than a few have had to forgo mission critical medication and treatment to make payment.
Anon 12:10, yet Verizon can "jail" your phone by shutting off service and preventing you from using it anywhere else. As long as you show up for court, the state doesn't jail you for the violation as a rule, they typically jail you when you stop going to required hearings. So using your example, Verizon has more power than the state which doesn't automatically take your car and render it useless until you pay.
Grits, you know that the chart if pure propaganda, right? Seriously, if were are going to reform they system to make it fairer, I don't see how it's going to happen with this kind of stuff. Someone ought to make a "fair" version of this chart that shows everything and not just a graphic that meet the Texas Fair Defense Project's narrative.
What do you propose as an alternative? How should traffic laws be enforced?
ReplyDeleteThere are many alternatives. How about day fines based on income levels? Or eliminating arrests for Class C misdemeanors? Or eliminating the Driver Responsibility surcharge. We're talking about a system with lots of moving parts and vested political interests. There will be no wholesale "alternative," only tweaks to what exists.
ReplyDeleteHow about making a flow chart where one makes reasonable attempts to obey the law and if caught, they either contest it or accept responsibility for their actions? Pay the ticket (payment plans), take DDC, deferred adjudication, or community service are also options that can be requested/approved by the court.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the concept of Driver Responsibility surcharges...like I do not like red light cameras, but I try to obey the law as best I can.
We have federal programs that subsidize phones, healthcare, food, unemployment, disability, etc so I am surprised that the current administration hasn't expanded additional (general) irresponsibility to cover that of traffic law violators. The 47% Romney spoke of is likely now up to 49%.
ReplyDelete@4:59, I think the answer is that the chart is attempting to describe what actually happens in the real world, not make excuses for systemic dysfunction. More than 10% of Texas drivers have outstanding traffic warrants - with volume that high, the problem is bigger than just people failing to accept responsibility.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot "obey the law as best I can" if the law says you must pay money you do not have.
@5:11, how do you go from traffic violations to Obama and Romney? Get a life.
I think there should be a limit on how much a ticket cost. I have seen offenders with one ticket over $600! Make all tickets under $100! Don't take people to jail for not being able to pay tickets!
ReplyDeleteMinor traffic stops,like failing to signal a turn at an intersection 100 feet before the turn, have morphed from punishment to a revenue source for cities. Arresting a citizen for such offenses costs much more that a fine.
ReplyDeleteThe costs of tickets are outrageous. A ticket that costs more that a minimum wage earner's daily pay, is too much money. Add to the fine the fictitious "court costs" and the sum is ridiculous. It's no longer a means to punish people for infractions, it is a means to raise money on the backs of the poor.
ReplyDeleteBy raising money on the poor, I mean traffic enforcement is different depending upon where you live. In the affluent area of town where I live, there are no cops using the traffic code as a means to interdict with citizens. However, on the poorer side of town, law enforcement presence and contact is a steady thing. It is a common law enforcement strategy to use the traffic code to go fishing for other crimes. It doesn't matter that most contacts are fruiteless, the result is the same. An expensive ticket that leaves no money for either the car repair (tag light out, etc.) or payment of living expenses (versus fine, court costs, bail, etc.).
You would think that jury nullification would kick in.
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say I do not agree with the driver surcharges and I do feel many fines are outrageous and a means for some localities to raise revenue. That being said, there was a time I was near homeless due to living paycheck to paycheck and being on the verge of eviction due to being behind on bills. I received traffic tickets, for offenses that I committed. Those last two words for me are the big words. I COMMITTED the offenses. I did not have the money to immediately go down and pay a lump sum to pay off the tickets. However, I did GO TO COURT see the judge and make payment arrangements. I was able to work out a payment plan that I was able to follow. I made the payments as best as I could and when I wasn't able I contacted the court and informed them of my situation and they worked with me. It took longer than expected but I was able to pay everything off with never having a warrant issued and never losing my job. As I spoke to others at court many drivers had the mentality of, "if I ignore it, it will go away." People did not take it seriously and they put themselves in bad situations. I saw people taken into custody for not appearing when summoned and not contacting the court when they missed payments. To me it appeared they just wanted to sit back and "see what happens and hope it goes away." If the driver does not put in the time and effort to address the issue then they are creating an environment where the court isn't going to work with them because they aren't working with the court. I am NOT saying this applies to everyone but it does apply to many of them. We have created a segment of society who just wants to shirk responsibility and then cry that they are a victim when they get held accountable. AGAIN THIS IS NOT EVERYONE but is many. You mentioned 10% of drivers have warrants, which is a lot of people numerically, but you didn't mention 90% of drivers don't have warrants which is even a larger number. Given the poverty rates of the state I would assume many of that 90% are poor or struggling. But they are able to maintain their DL.
ReplyDeleteAgain I think parts of the system are broken, but I think many people think "major" reform needs to happen, when actually the system is working for the vast majority of people. I would love to see surcharges and fines reduced and reformed, but until they are, personally I made an agreement with the state that I would obey their traffic laws when I received my ticket and I know the consequences if I don't obey and I take responsibility for my actions and their consequences. I know some people may not have the means to truly take care of their fines, but I bet it is a smaller percentage of that 10% then people think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Anonymous 11:36
DeleteAccepting for the sake of argument that victimless class c misdemeanors ought result in a liability to the state, why should the state have more coercive means of exacting payment than any other civil liability?
When I fail to pay for my cell phone service, I've done more harm to someone than I did when failing to signal a lane change.
Why should the state be able to put me in jail but Verizon cannot?
Neither should be able to. They should have the same recourse against my public good name (credit report) nothing more.
@Anonymous 11:36
DeleteAccepting for the sake of argument that victimless class c misdemeanors ought result in a liability to the state, why should the state have more coercive means of exacting payment than any other civil liability?
When I fail to pay for my cell phone service, I've done more harm to someone than I did when failing to signal a lane change.
Why should the state be able to put me in jail but Verizon cannot?
Neither should be able to. They should have the same recourse against my public good name (credit report) nothing more.
The claims that traffic enforcement is an exercise in harvesting great sums of money from the poor is laughable considering the truly poor don't have the money in the first place. Like it or not, a great many of the poor simply "play the game" of driving until the state takes away their TDL, then continuing to drive once released. They often do not have insurance too so when they hit your shiny newer car, shrug their shoulders and tell you "you can't get blood from a stone" as they laugh in your face before driving off, keep in mind that you will then be victimized again by your insurance company in most cases, paying more to cover the loss even when you have full coverage.
ReplyDeleteAs 11:36 points out, most big cities work with those that break the law by offering payment plans or community service. As long as you show up or communicate with the court your inability to pay, they virtually all work with you but a growing number of people think it will go away if left untended, playing the odds so hand wringers can wail about the inequities of life where the mean old cops target people breaking the law, those of lesser financial means statistically more likely to have equipment violations, lack insurance or a valid driver license, or have warrants from a previous encounter.
But in Chris' narrative, Verizon will not only report you to the credit agencies but they will cut off your service and lock your expensive phone from use; something "the state" rarely does. Many would favor a law where the car you were driving would be confiscated until you paid your fines rather than the driver stuck in jail a few days. That would be a closer example to the Verizon method of doing things than anything else. But given programs for those convicted to offer community service for their fines, often at greatly inflated rates considering the lack of skills such people tend to bring to the table, it's tough for the average person to sympathize. I'm not a fan of the state surcharges myself but unless the state is going to force people to learn better driving skills like most countries do, especially those countries that use income based fines by the way, these "victim-less crimes" sure lead to a lot of roadway deaths, accidents costing many millions of dollars collectively, and cost all the responsible people a great deal more in every single way.
When I was 19 I was arrested for a class C misdemeanor driver license violation. I was booked in to jail at 11:30 pm one day receiving $50 credit for that day and released after midnight after receiving another $50 credit for the following day. The jailers declared me "time served" and let me go. What I didn't know at the time was that if I didn't petition the court for a
ReplyDeletelesser penalty such as deferred adjudication the arrest permanently stays on my record as a conviction. Over the years this "conviction" has now morphed into a conviction for Fraud. Try getting a decent job with a "Fraud" conviction on your record from almost thirty years ago.
In our area there is a stop sign (set up counter state standards) that serves only as a cash cow. One can get a deferred payment plan for a fee that would make pay day loan company envious but not if you want to contest the citation.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge no one has been successful in contesting the 'trap' but more than a few have had to forgo mission critical medication and treatment to make payment.
When I fail to pay for my cell phone service, I've done more harm to someone than I did when failing to signal a lane change.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the state be able to put me in jail but Verizon cannot?
Neither should be able to. They should have the same recourse against my public good name (credit report) nothing more.
{{
There was a recent effort in the ledge to permit Verizon etc to do just that.
Anon 12:10,
ReplyDeleteyet Verizon can "jail" your phone by shutting off service and preventing you from using it anywhere else. As long as you show up for court, the state doesn't jail you for the violation as a rule, they typically jail you when you stop going to required hearings. So using your example, Verizon has more power than the state which doesn't automatically take your car and render it useless until you pay.
Grits, you know that the chart if pure propaganda, right?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if were are going to reform they system to make it fairer, I don't see how it's going to happen with this kind of stuff. Someone ought to make a "fair" version of this chart that shows everything and not just a graphic that meet the Texas Fair Defense Project's narrative.