Re:A Woman Who Spent Six Years Fighting a Traffic Stop
by mjevans on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @02:27PM
(#10125045)
Fines should go directly to a federally recognized not-for-profit. This is how repaying the community for a fine-able offence could be made. Also they should be /on top of/ damages. (In the case of most non-accident traffic matters, the 'damages' are non-existent.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Woman Who Spent Six Years Fighting a Traffic Stop
by briandear on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @03:19PM
(#10125374)
Nope. The Clinton Foundation is a "Federally Recognized not-for-profit." Could you imagine the stratospheric levels of corruption of non profits start to demand law enforcement revenues.
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.
Re:A Woman Who Spent Six Years Fighting a Traffic Stop
by realityking on Wednesday August 26, 2015 @03:20PM
(#10125382)
There actually is a system like this in place in Germany. Not for traffic fines, but if you get a fine in criminal court (technically your case is suspended conditionally on paying X€) it will go to a local charity.
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.