You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] SpottyMatt 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This is the second article I've seen about this partnership in Texas now, and a lot of the negative reactions to it mention how people that "normally" would not have been forced into paying a fine that they have been assessed by the state, are identified and made to pay, and this is an unfortunate financial burden on them.

This is the wrong objection, It equates to "boo-hoo I got caught and had to face the unsurprising, documented, legal consequence of the actions." There seems to be this expectation that people should be allowed to go about their lives with outstanding fines owed to the state, and never have to pay if the state can't find them, e.g.

Yet many Port Arthur residents miss their court dates, or fail to complete their community service — because they have to work, or perhaps because they forget or don’t make it a priority. Then a warrant goes out

Yeah, when you break the law, there are consequences. This is not new, should not surprise anybody, and you should be wary of anybody who expresses a sense of unfairness about violators getting caught: that suggests that they feel the laws should apply differently to different people in different situations and does not lend itself to the perpetuation of civilized, equitable society.

This "boo hoo I got caught" objection is juvenile and undermines the very real objections that people should be having to pieces of government involved in this partnership:

Fines aren't proportional to income

This is not new to the camera situation in Texas, but it is an outstanding fault with the American practice of traffic fines. Bad for two reasons:

  • Traffic fines punish low-income people much more harshly than the affluent.
  • Traffic fines are indifferent to deterrents for the affluent: I have a friend from a wealthy family, and he and his father simply ignore traffic regulations when they feel like it because they will simply pay the fine impounding fee and any other fines they may encounter, because they are chump change. Jailed instead of fined? No biggie; lawyer up and get out.

Data Leveraged through a partnership with private company

See the EFF's article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/no-cost-license-plate-readers-are-turning-texas-police-mobile-debt-collectors-and

... clause that says the company also get to keep a copy of all the license-plate data collected by the agency, even after the contract ends. ... “retains LPR data as long as it has commercial value.” ... can sell or license that information to other law enforcement bodies and potentially to private companies such as insurance firms and repossession agencies.

This data is being collected by public police agencies, for the profit of a private company. This is not intrinsically bad, but

  • The increase in fee, which is used to pay the private company, maybe higher than Texas law allows (see EFF article)
  • Despite being collected on public property, this data has similar privacy implications to the cell phone metadata gathering by the NSA, but
  • Private companies are subject to much less transparency and privacy legislation than public institutions are, in so it may be much more difficult for people to manage this privacy.

Inadequate protections for the accused

When you are summoned for jury duty, which is the gov't requiring that you take time out of your life to do something for it, it is illegal for your employer to penalize you for answering that call.

While passing through criminal courts, it is unconstitutional for any entity of the government to presume guilt until convicted at a trial (or voluntarily admitting guilt).

In Texas, traffic violations are technically criminal offenses, yet there is no protection from repercussions from one's employer when going through the court system but not yet convicted, i.e. when still innocent. IMO this should maybe change.

Now, if somebody admits fault or otherwise accepts the fine on the ticket instead of going to court, then part of accepting that responsibility is that you have to find a way to pay the entity you owe it to.

Let me be clear: I have no problem with people being expected, or even coerced to pay fines that they legitimately do owe to the state. The expectation that agents of the state will only attempt to interact with the single offense for which you have been pulled over at a traffic stop, is ridiculous. Being pulled over for a "tail light out" and then discovered to also be driving under the influence is an extremely common trope - no sane person should assert that the officer should just be like "oh, well, I only pulled you over for the taillight, so carry on driving drunk." With the advent of this technology, it is now possible for less immediately-apparent offenses to be addressed at the time of the traffic stop as well. While there are many other legitimate reasons to object to this particular going-on in Texas at this time, "no fair, I am getting caught for things that I normally would have gotten away with" is not one of them and reeks of entitlement.

P.S.

gave his own mother a traffic ticket... makes no exceptions. His mom drove away with a ticket

Good cop: enforced the law, even when he had a personal or familial connection to the offender.