Better yet, make it revenue-neutral, perhaps by paying money to those found not guilty.

After all, even if revenue gets split up, there's still a moral hazard.

Why do not lobby for legislation that allows you to drive over a red light? Instead of arguing indirectly against applying that law.

Because I don't like people who run red lights. I've gone so far as to chase them down, knock on their windows, and ask them why they were trying to kill me.

If the motive for enforcement is not profit, then the overall revenue derived from enforcement would not change if the distribution method became more indirect. If my suggestion changed behavior, it is sufficient proof that governments' motives are not pure.

There's nothing wrong with providing incentives for local governments to enforce the rules.

One problem (of many) is that there are so many laws that everyone probably breaks a few every day. Did you cross the street to talk to your neighbor? Jaywalking. $50 fine. So, a system of laws has been created that allows local governments to almost arbitrarily tax their citizens at will simply by choosing which laws to enforce.

I believe there are restrictions on the work that prisoners can be forced to do because there's a fine line between incarceration as punishment and enslavement. If the government has an incentive to incarcerate, it will seek to find ways to acquire more prisoners. I see this as a parallel to fine collection.

All of my comments in this thread are US-centric, obviously.

Perhaps we change the underlying laws? Not enforcing unjust laws seems a second best.

There is, however, something wrong with providing incentives for local governments to manipulate rules to turn people into criminals, particularly when those manipulations actually make driving (in this case) more dangerous. Seriously -- do you not see the potential danger in giving local government an incentive to shorten yellow lights just to catch more people in a ticketable offense?