It doesn't go into a budget. It doesn't fund anything else. Anything collected goes to victims or it goes back to the people.
This would stop ALL of the perverse incentives.
That would help a ton though.
I'm really tired of seeing internet commentary on "tough on crime" attitudes where people think victims are basically judge and jury, possibly omniscient, and their hurt and revenge fantasies should decide policy for millions of unrelated people, supersedes the needs of everybody else, like our need to have an impartial justice system and prevent wrongful conviction.
But getting back to your comment, if you want to know where the "perverse incentive" is in your proposal, it creates incentive for someone to falsely present themselves as a victim of a crime.
The idea is that let us say the normal price of electricity would be e.g. 10c / kwH. To incentivize people to use less electricity we charge 20c/ but the extra 10c go to the fund which at the end of the year is split evenly between all electricity consumers.
So basically everyone pays 20c x consumption -10c x (average consumption).
This is more difficult if 100% of it goes out the door. Hypothetically you could still get ecosystem issues, though. Where an org argues for more fines so that their existence is justified and that they don't shrink. etc.
we're discussing the incentives that lead to police becoming thieves. Which is just as important as the police being thieves. Assuming you want to fix the root cause, at least.
You don't think as long as they have incentive to fine more as it directly influences their budget, that it might affect their actions towards fining and seizing citizens? Are you saying it's unrelated?
edit: To word it differently, do you think solving this one problem will end their association with your money and their budget?
We have fundamental concepts like equal representation and equal treatment under the law that clearly show CAF to be wrong.