Hacker News Reader

Comment by sithadmin | Hacker News Reader

> they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' prisons

Whoa there, hold on a second. That's not what's going on at all. The plates are being run to detect if the car's owner has outstanding court fines, which are not akin to a simple debt. These are (probably) justified, punitive fees imposed on an individual for some kind of offense against the law (and by extension, the public). It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something.

That said, this behavior is still troubling insofar as it is likely to disproportionately result in the targeting and punishment of the poor, which is in itself a rather problematic issue. And it's certainly troubling that the additional fee being imposed to process payment for the fines collected is far above what seems to be (at a glance, anyway) a reasonable margin for operating costs.

View on HN

> These are (probably) justified, punitive fees imposed on an individual for some kind of offense against the law (and by extension, the public). It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something.

John Oliver did an entertaining segment on bail at one point. It presents some good examples of what can go wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

> Whoa there, hold on a second. That's not what's going on at all.

We already have de-facto debtors prisons, this is just making it easier to get people into them.

Even more relevant is his piece on municipal violations and how they can unfairly steamroll the poor with escalating fees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

I think the common complaint here is that there are plenty of "crimes" that are committed on a daily basis like minor speeding (going 1-5 mph over the speed limit), jaywalking, etc, that are nearly impossible to entirely enforce. This gives police the ability to selectively enforce said laws simply because they can't totally enforce it. As you noted this can be used to punish the poor far more than others. The combination of all of these factors and the ability to track these "offenders" down more easily, it isn't a far shot from what the parent poster was saying by comparing it to a debtors' prison.

Worth asking: Why do they punish the poor more so than others?

I really doubt it's because those in poverty give fewer fucks about following traffic law.

I doubt it's a matter of education since you're supposed to demonstrate that minimum competence before you get a license anyways, and if you're not, we've found the problem.

What's left?

I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the equation. It's not about the relative rates of traffic violations among the poor vs everyone else; it's about the relative impact the same fine has.

If you have comfortable amounts of wealth and/or income and get hit with a $500 fine you might be annoyed but you can pay it and go on your way.

But for the poor it's not so simple. First, that $500 represents a much larger burden. Even if they do scrape together the money to actually pay the fine, it might mean other bills would have to go unpaid, for example. And if they don't or can't get the money to pay the fine, those outstanding fines can get additional fees tacked on like Vigilant's 25%.

So it's not about seeking out the poor disproportionately more than the rich; it's about how the same punishment is actually more punishing.

I can accept that, but then we're left right back where we started.

Income based fines would be (rightly) struck down based on the equal protection clause to the constitution. They might even survive introduction to state legislation, but the moment someone with the resources contests it, it'll fall.

Not having the fines is not tenable, seeing as how it's the only way the law has any teeth.

Between a rock and a hard place. And seeing as how these laws are generally to society's benefit, just dropping them isn't valid either.

If the fine is an equal percentage for all, one could make a compelling constitutional argument that it applies equally to all. The same argument has been made against progressive tax and have been ruled without merit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_a...

community service?

Because they're easier to fuck with. It's expensive and time consuming to fight back.

Negative. While the debtor's prisons thing misses it, you missed it also. FTA:

"...handing Vigilant all of the data they gather on drivers for nearly unlimited commercial use..."

Debt collectors thrive on collecting every scrap of information they can about debtors: where they live, where they work, their cell numbers, and so on. This LPR database could quite easily build up profiles about debtors that collectors in the past could only dream of. One immediate application is watching where a car is driven and parked in order to repo it. That's probably the most acceptable use I can think of.

It gets worse from there: think data mining for alimony and custody battles, use by private investigators in infidelity cases, locating and stalking former lovers, and so on.

First, I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system.

Second, even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things!

Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems.

For example, I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest!

Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't. I managed to pay it off, but for someone earning less would have had a very hard time paying that big of a fee, much less the financial impact of being fucking arrested...

" It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something."

Please explain how this is correct now, because it seems obviously false. (aka, they are extorting people because they are behind on payments (just because you made the false distinction of credit cards/rent and court fines does not make that fact magically go away...), and the police are even doing it for a third party!)

That's not even getting into the privacy and other issues the eff raises. For example, my paralegal friend has access to the TLO system and can look up plates and their geo/time data. While she wouldn't abuse it, the barriers to entry for paralegals can be pretty low in some firms...

Do you also have your friend take the class? :)

The distinction you seem to take such issue with is not entirely of his own creation. For one, judicially enforced financial penalties cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

"Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems." I couldn't agree more.

The penalty for civil infractions is a fine and/or jail time. We've become so use to just payig fines we think it's a debtors prison if the law breaker doesn't pay the fine so we opt to penalize then with jail time. Perhaps we should just great everyone fairly and use jail time penalties only. That could lead to some reforms read quickly. The bigger offense and issue I have is when the state then charges the inmates for room and board. That's wrong.

>I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system.

The law already does. In the former case, we're talking about debts established in the course of various financial transactions between private parties. In the latter case, we're talking about fees (or more specifically in this case, what would colloquially be known as fines) that are imposed by the state for punitive and administrative reasons. Skipping out on the former will (generally) result in ruined credit scores and civil suits; skipping out on the latter is an civil or criminal offense against the state.

>even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things!

The term 'debtor's prison' is a loaded term, perjoratively describing historical cases of imprisonment of persons for failing to pay private debts. Barring edge cases (i.e., fraud), this has largely been eliminated in the USA. Imprisonment for failing to pay fines imposed for offenses against the law, on the other hand, is not a practice that has ever been (nor is likely to be) eliminated. And I don't buy that there are 'good reasons to get rid of such things', but that's a different discussion than the one at hand.

>Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems.

Be that as it may, it's not germane to whether or not it's okay for the state to use creative ways to collect on previous assessed fines.

>I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest! Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't.

Actually, I do think it's justified. Dealing with low level tickets is hardly difficult or burdensome, and the state has excellent reasons to create strong disincentives for dodging punishment. Further, paying a steep premium for irresponsible handling of your incident seems far preferable to serving actual jail time, or facing some other less dignified form of corporal punishment (as you might receive in a less westernized nations).

> they are extorting people because they are behind on payments

There's no extortion going on. It's implicit that the state's agents possess the means to impose compliance with the law; in cases where the law dictates that individuals pay a fine, it's reasonable for the state's agents to collect that fine or initiate further punishment for noncompliance with the law. Given the choice between jail + the courts and paying a high fee (some of which is to cover the costs associated with payment collection), a 25% premium hardly seems unreasonable.

I think tacking on a 25% processing fee is 100% in the "extorting people" category. The people caught for the purpose of paying a court fee are being forced to pay for the hardware, instead of it going through proper LEO budgets.

You'd be surprised, I recommend you look into it a little bit it's pretty disturbing how a simple traffic ticket can be a ticket to prison for people who are too poor to pay it.

Not to be too pendatic, but do you mean jail? Not sure how minor civil infractions lead to prison. Prison is usually for criminal infractions.

Yes, multiple civil infractions can lead to criminal ones. That's what is suppose to deter people from habitually committing petty offenses.

Did you forget to log into your other account before you replied to yourself or.... I'm confused about what's happening here.

I now may take solace in the hope that most of these awful comment threads are just the same person arguing with themselves!

if you check jrs235's history, you'll see numerous instances of self-replies with additional information.

It can absolutely lead to jail. Don't pay the fine in time, suspended license. Driving on a suspended license? Arrestable offense. Miss your court date? Warrant. Even if you go to court and they put you on a payment plan, that gives you a few months to pay it, costs even more, and if you don't pay in time you've violated a court order.

If you don't pay a probation fine in time, you can quickly go right back to jail to serve the remainder of your sentence.

governments take advantage of poor people on purpose. they don't pay enough into the system to be profitable as an individual member of society, so they're harassed and fined until insolvency and imprisonment, at which point they become profitable again (thanks to private prisons).

it's way too effective to not be done on purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com