Fines as a punishment really suck
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
128 points (99.2% liked)
News
23387 readers
2182 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What about a 5% of your total wealth fine rounded down to the nearest $100 (if we could accurately find and report the wealth of individuals).
Houseless people would get a big fat $0 fine and that rich fucker who could usually just write the fee off as an incidental would be hurting.
So if you have $25,000 paid into a car loan but no liquid assets the government forces the sale of your car to collect their $1,250. Maybe they sell it fast for less than it's worth. Now you have no car and lost a great deal of money.
Maybe your wealth is in your home.
You think camping without a permit warrants taking 5% of everything you have? That's insanity. What if you do it twice? What other offences might you also want to collect 5% for? Littering or jaywalking? Smoking?
Let's say you have $1000 in the bank and nothing else. The government wants their $50 but you don't pay because you need that money. Now you have to pay a late fee or something, probably get arrested and put in front of a judge, spend time in jail for not paying?
That's not the way
1/365 of your yearly income makes sense, it's like missing a day of work. 1/20 of your "total wealth" for camping is insane though.
Well 5% really doesn't match this crime, I just selected the number randomly as an example.
I also could have worded it better, but I was trying to get at having a limit, $100 for example, where if the fine is below that number, you round down to zero. It could maybe just be paperwork or something
Does cruel and unusual punishment apply here?
My limited understanding of the topic is that ‘cruel but usual’ and ‘unusual but not cruel’ can invalidate the charge. And unfortunately, the mistreatment of the homeless could be seen as usual.
It won't apply in front of this court. The USA, where corporations are considered people but the homeless are not.
It should apply, if only the rich werent the ruling class. Id consider taking money from someone who has nothing/very little to be cruel.
It’s either or.
No, but the problem is that SCOTUS likes to ignore the consequences of the 1A right to assemble (which is why you have abridged rights during a traffic stop - you have no right to travel to your assembly point, even though it's a necessary right in order to have freedom of assembly), which is what actually covers the general right of people to exist in public, since they must in order to assemble.