Michigan can suspend poor people's driver's licenses for unpaid fines: U.S. appeals court

[ReadingRainbow]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

For sure, but the point QOE is making is that the consequences for having these fines are disproportionately burdensome on the poor. If I get a $40 parking ticket, I’m momentarily irritated but it’s not the end of the world. For someone that can’t afford the $40 and who might incur late fees on the $40 they couldn’t afford in the first place trying to save up to pay for it, it’s a huge deal. Obviously people of every socioeconomic status have the option of obeying the regulations in the first place, but the consequences of not doing so are much more severe on the poor.

That may be true, but that is the situation no matter what the object or price is that a person needs to pay for.

Replacing a dishwasher is more impactful, paying for homeowners/renters insurance, paying for groceries...

But the difference is that these fines can be avoided completely if one follows the law.

[Deleted User 276]

I am not opposed to fines but I opposed to taking away the ability to drive (something that many people need to be able to do to work) in order to punish for unpaid fines. It just doesn't make sense.

[morgan]

If the point of things like parking and traffic tickets are to deter illegal actions, having them actually be an incentive to not speed or park illegally for everyone would seem to be the most effective.

So you, I, and the court agree that being poor should not make you exempt.
Excellent.

I certainly haven’t argued that they should be exempt, just that I think fines should be within a range, set proportionate to income.

That would be called identity punishment.

[Della]

If you can't afford the fine don't do the crime. I could afford a fine but I don't want to pay one so I don't park or drive illegally. I do accidentally speed once in a while, if I got pulled over then I face the consequences. Every singe person has the option to no break the law.

Have you ever had a light out (headlight, taillight, running lights, blinkers) that you just simply didn't have the money to repair?

[Della]

We should have different roads for the poor whoers and the rich bitches.

/s

Rich people pay for all the infrastructure.
So it won't really matter.

That's like saying the non-custodial parent who pays child support fully supports the child.

[morgan]

If you can't afford the fine don't do the crime. I could afford a fine but I don't want to pay one so I don't park or drive illegally. I do accidentally speed once in a while, if I got pulled over then I face the consequences. Every singe person has the option to no break the law.

Have you ever had a light out (headlight, taillight, running lights, blinkers) that you just simply didn't have the money to repair?

Those are all serious safety issues that put other drivers at risk. Lights are no joke. If you can't afford to get them fixed then you shouldn't drive until you can.

[ReadingRainbow]

If you can't afford the fine don't do the crime. I could afford a fine but I don't want to pay one so I don't park or drive illegally. I do accidentally speed once in a while, if I got pulled over then I face the consequences. Every singe person has the option to no break the law.

Have you ever had a light out (headlight, taillight, running lights, blinkers) that you just simply didn't have the money to repair?

Those get tickets because they are safety measures.

Without headlights everyone driving around you and pedestrians are at risk . Without blinkers accidents happen much more frequently.

Not being able to afford fixing it is not an excuse to make driving more dangerous for everyone else.

[Billie.jeens]

We should have different roads for the poor whoers and the rich bitches.

/s

Rich people pay for all the infrastructure.
So it won't really matter.

That's like saying the non-custodial parent who pays child support fully supports the child.

I don't see that at all
Describe that.

[Deleted User 876]

(Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that Michigan may suspend the driver's licenses of poor people with unpaid traffic fines, saying it did not violate their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

By a 2-1 vote, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Michigan had legitimate interests in promoting compliance with court orders and collecting traffic debt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michi ... spartanntp

They can suspend driver's licenses of ANYONE who has unpaid fines - why do poor people think they should get a pass on paying for their own misdeeds by virtue of being poor? Poverty should not be made a license to do whatever you want with impunity.

[Della]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

For sure, but the point QOE is making is that the consequences for having these fines are disproportionately burdensome on the poor. If I get a $40 parking ticket, I’m momentarily irritated but it’s not the end of the world. For someone that can’t afford the $40 and who might incur late fees on the $40 they couldn’t afford in the first place trying to save up to pay for it, it’s a huge deal. Obviously people of every socioeconomic status have the option of obeying the regulations in the first place, but the consequences of not doing so are much more severe on the poor.

That may be true, but that is the situation no matter what the object or price is that a person needs to pay for.

Replacing a dishwasher is more impactful, paying for homeowners/renters insurance, paying for groceries...

But the difference is that these fines can be avoided completely if one follows the law.

Your grammar is atrocious, lol. And your logic is odd regarding the dishwasher scenario.

Would you answer the same question I asked Poites [sp?]?