Meh. I'm in favor of harsh punishments for violating rules that are (a) just / fair, (b) very very easy to NOT violate. Read Friedman's Law's Order - have to multiply loss x prob of being caught. Harshness does not AT ALL invalidate "can't do time / don't do crime" logichttps://twitter.com/uppittynegress/status/1095023824658227202 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ $1,000 fine for littering from a car? FINE! Don't want to pay it? Don't throw crap out the window.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MorlockP
And then the ones who can’t pay end up in jail. So now tax payers are paying for that, plus police overtime to watch for litterers, plus the salaries of the court to prosecute the litterers. So we’ve wasted all this money in hopes 98% of litterers will just pay the fine?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uppittynegress
yes, them going to jail is GOOD. You want to disincentivize theft.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @uppittynegress
In addition, the framing of going to jail for stealing 3 dollars is disingenuous. That person jumping a turnstile once is 99 percent likely to be doing it hundreds more times. Punishment has to take into account likelihood of getting caught at it.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
yep - as mentioned be me at the head of this thread!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.