The state should fund the court for hearing those cases (but not enforcement).
Then we'll see if cities really care about safety or about money.
Edit: more about Linndale: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/linndale_wi...
It might make more sense than I realize, but destroying punitive damages seems like a terrible option. Damages are meant to penalize the offender; destroying wealth penalizes everyone.
It's a very modest deflationary effect.
Although for a speeding ticket one point is harsh maybe 1/2 point or 1/4 point if less than 30km/h over the posted speed with a 10km/h grace (speedometer error/wind etc.).
No monetary gain or loss for either side no incentive to catch speeders going a little bit over the limit and a big incentive as a driver to not get caught.
Problem is, like my wife a decade ago when she tried to get her license renewed, it had been revoked a year prior to that because of excessive speeding tickets and due to her being young and moving a lot managed to not receive the postal notification (or she ignored it, you can choose). What do you do when people just start ignoring the points? Have more points that accrue on subsequent violations that further prevent someone from renewing their license after a probationary period? What if they ignore that point system also?
The executors of the Justice system of the United States relies almost entirely on trust. It's trivial to break trust.
There are surely other options too, such as spreading it out. You could fund a flat tax credit for all residents of the county with the fines. The wealth is not destroyed, and if the credit is on the order of a handful of dollars per resident, no one is going to have any strong incentives. You could vote to double all traffic fines- but if you personally stand to gain $3.72 from that doubling, the incentive exists but is very small.
All funding of government would come only from taxes. This would eliminate any financial benefit to the government from fines, fees, and asset forfeiture.
The money should go to the general revenue fund but as an offset against tax income. More fines: lower taxes (which essentially means that the fines are distributed to the taxpayers, which is completely fair since the crime is against "the people."
Law enforcement should never get fine money. That's a huge conflict of interest. It would be like a foreign government donating to the non profit of a sitting Secretary of State.
Caused quite a bit of drama a few months ago when the "Kinderschutzbund" refused the payment in a widely publicized child pornography case (the defendant was a member of the federal parliament at the time of the crime) despite accepting it before in similar cases.