NationStates Jolt Archive

I think we should lower taxes and raise fines for criminals. This way, good people would not have to pay as much money to the government. Criminals, on the other hand, would pay more money to the government so other people would not have to. It would be called no taxation without
criminalization.

We already have a system like this in the Confederacy of Stone River. Criminals face extremely stiff penalties, and pay heavily for the crimes. Thanks in part to this, we don't even need to charge an income tax for our citizens! The criminals lose, everyone else wins! I'd say that's a pretty setup.

Punishing criminals will not stop crime.

edit: but I suppose you don't want to stop crime as if you did you would have to start taxation again. What about the poor criminals who cannot afford your fines?

probably not, but good citizens still don't pay as much in taxes. If you don't commit a crime, then you won't pay any fine!!! Poor criminals can pay off the fine in installments with interest. The families of these poor criminals will get unemployment type support if they need it and people below the poverty line in my nation don't pay any income tax. Everyone else pays a flat rate of 16.6% or 1/6 of their income in taxes with all deductions included.

I doubt fines from criminals would even cover the costs of fighting crime. Surely it would be better to spend more on social programmes to stop crime happening in the first place?

Yes, stop crime by making government the criminal, great idea!

It makes no difference whether you rob people with a gun or with a ballot.

Yes, stop crime by making government the criminal, great idea!

It makes no difference whether you rob people with a gun or with a ballot.

What is criminal about what I have suggested? If the government only tries to stop criminals after crime has been committed it still has to be paid for. Better to help people so that they do not turn to crime in the first place is it not?

I feel very little sympathy for those who choose to use crime as a means of income. We must set an example to those who would even consider commiting crime. I also seriously question how we are committing a crime by punishing criminals and bettering the common good at the same time. We must make the message loud and clear; if you choose to commit crime, you choose to put yourself in a financial bind. Being a lawful and good citizen will get you many benfits, while being unlawful will get you nothing but a world of trouble.

Yes, stop crime by making government the criminal, great idea!

It makes no difference whether you rob people with a gun or with a ballot.

What is criminal about what I have suggested? If the government only tries to stop criminals after crime has been committed it still has to be paid for. Better to help people so that they do not turn to crime in the first place is it not?

The money has to come from someone else, ja? That's using physical coercion to take money from one person and give it to another, ja? The only difference is that the government does it.

Yes, stop crime by making government the criminal, great idea!

It makes no difference whether you rob people with a gun or with a ballot.

What is criminal about what I have suggested? If the government only tries to stop criminals after crime has been committed it still has to be paid for. Better to help people so that they do not turn to crime in the first place is it not?

The money has to come from someone else, ja? That's using physical coercion to take money from one person and give it to another, ja? The only difference is that the government does it.

So if we do not take money from anyone how do we catch the criminals in the first place to fine them? Call in Batman?

Yes, stop crime by making government the criminal, great idea!

It makes no difference whether you rob people with a gun or with a ballot.

What is criminal about what I have suggested? If the government only tries to stop criminals after crime has been committed it still has to be paid for. Better to help people so that they do not turn to crime in the first place is it not?

The money has to come from someone else, ja? That's using physical coercion to take money from one person and give it to another, ja? The only difference is that the government does it.

So if we do not take money from anyone how do we catch the criminals in the first place to fine them? Call in Batman?

The amount is tiny and it can be funded through a very low consumption tax. Some robbery is necessary, but this is the way to minimize robbery.

We object to this idea because it necessarily corrupts law enforcement and government. When the government profits from crime, it acquires an incentive to promote crime rather than eradicate it.
Most of the worst criminals - murderers, rapists, robbers - don't have any assets to pay very heavy fines. Even if you sell them into slavery, they aren't worth much. So how will the money be raised? By criminalizing relatively innocuous behavior, so that more people can be fined. Police will concentrate on those "offenders" who are easiest to apprehend and extract money from - not the real criminals, but honest people who inevitably break some of the innumerable and irrational rules.
This is why, for instance, police write millions of traffic tickets for incredibly trivial infractions like double parking or changing lanes without signalling, yet don't have the resources to investigate rapes and robberies. The pigs go where the trough is.

Governments are always going to want more money. Under this system they will try to get it by needlessly criminalizingg innocent behavior, and convicting innocent people, all for the sake of the income.

Good points gentlemen. But what about those who commit fraud and are unable to pay back any/all of their ill gotten gains - should we not seize their remaining assets and compensate their victims (this could well be the state in the event of the crime involving public money)?

Additionally why not have a system where by the parents of juvenile criminals are fined (it is their fault that their children are miscreants) and the moneys passed on to victims? If the the parents have no money then they get a jail sentence and the children are placed into care.

Rational self interest - A system of parking regulation and traffic laws are necessary evils - without it roads would be chaotic and more lives would be lost - recalcitrants should therefore be penalised.

by lowering taxes, the people will be much happier but the school systems may falter. The biggest funding for schools comes from taxes. However i do agree with raising the criminal fees. if they know the fees have been raised, for when they break a law, then it is there own fault for having to pay that fee.

But what about those who commit fraud and are unable to pay back any/all of their ill gotten gains - should we not seize their remaining assets and compensate their victims (this could well be the state in the event of the crime involving public money)?
That is a civil, not a criminal, remedy. Anyone (at least in RSI) can already sue the perpetrator of a fraud. This is not the same as levying a fine, even if carried out by the state; the damages do not exceed the harm done, and the funds go to the injured Department, not to general revenue.

Additionally why not have a system where by the parents of juvenile criminals are fined (it is their fault that their children are miscreants) and the moneys passed on to victims? If the the parents have no money then they get a jail sentence and the children are placed into care.

We are unconvinced that parents are solely responsible for juvenile crime, although they must take full or partial responsibility in the case of younger children. Teenagers are responsible for their own actions.
We are suspicious of a system which offers fines to the rich and jail time to the poor. Essentially it allows the rich to escape punishment. In RSI, fines (though not civil damages) are scaled to income, and all revenues from fines go into the Victim's Compensation Fund, so that government isn't tempted to use fines as a source of income.

A system of parking regulation and traffic laws are necessary evils - without it roads would be chaotic and more lives would be lost - recalcitrants should therefore be penalised.
When traffic enforcement is no longer a revenue-generating activity, it is found that traffic violations are considered no more important than rape or robbery, and are no longer the object of greater law enforcement effort.

We are unconvinced that parents are solely responsible for juvenile crime, although they must take full or partial responsibility in the case of younger children. Teenagers are responsible for their own actions.
We are suspicious of a system which offers fines to the rich and jail time to the poor. Essentially it allows the rich to escape punishment. In RSI, fines (though not civil damages) are scaled to income, and all revenues from fines go into the Victim's Compensation Fund, so that government isn't tempted to use fines as a source of income.

When traffic enforcement is no longer a revenue-generating activity, it is found that traffic violations are considered no more important than rape or robbery, and are no longer the object of greater law enforcement effort.

RSI sounds like a fine place to live, work and do business.

While you're at it, consider rationalizing bail. Drug dealers pay cash and go free while small timers are incarcerated for petty theft.

by lowering taxes, the people will be much happier but the school systems may falter. The biggest funding for schools comes from taxes. However i do agree with raising the criminal fees. if they know the fees have been raised, for when they break a law, then it is there own fault for having to pay that fee.

This is not true. ANY government social spending should clearly favor education. We can lower taxes without cutting education, in fact even increasing education funding. Unlike welfare, social security, etc., education is a positive thing. Education allows people to take personal responsibility and build their ambitions which helps society as a whole. On the other hand, social security just is a big waste of money on everyone's part, and welfare makes people stay poor, especially since the amount of money a person can get on welfare is far more than he can get through working if he doesn't have a few years of college.

We are unconvinced that parents are solely responsible for juvenile crime, although they must take full or partial responsibility in the case of younger children. Teenagers are responsible for their own actions.
We are suspicious of a system which offers fines to the rich and jail time to the poor. Essentially it allows the rich to escape punishment. In RSI, fines (though not civil damages) are scaled to income, and all revenues from fines go into the Victim's Compensation Fund, so that government isn't tempted to use fines as a source of income.

When traffic enforcement is no longer a revenue-generating activity, it is found that traffic violations are considered no more important than rape or robbery, and are no longer the object of greater law enforcement effort.

RSI sounds like a fine place to live, work and do business.

While you're at it, consider rationalizing bail. Drug dealers pay cash and go free while small timers are incarcerated for petty theft.

I think that we should scrap the bail system. Anybody who's arrested is PRESUMED INNOCENT. Therefore, they should automatically be released (under surveillance of course) and NOT be held in jail until trial.

Unlike welfare, social security, etc., education is a positive thing. Education allows people to take personal responsibility and build their ambitions which helps society as a whole. <<OOC: my (very rough) estimate is that if the U.S. government provided free education (in an economically useful field) to everyone able to benefit from it, the return (in the form of higher taxes from higher incomes) would be double to triple the returns realizable from any stable investment in the market - without a dime of the cost being actually repaid.>>

I think that we should scrap the bail system. Anybody who's arrested is PRESUMED INNOCENT. Therefore, they should automatically be released (under surveillance of course) and NOT be held in jail until trial.
Keeping them under surveillance is not really practical. Our scientists are currently developing a tracking system using a device similar to a house arrest ankle bracelet. The problem is getting the cost of the system below the cost of bail.

We are unconvinced that parents are solely responsible for juvenile crime, although they must take full or partial responsibility in the case of younger children. Teenagers are responsible for their own actions.
We are suspicious of a system which offers fines to the rich and jail time to the poor. Essentially it allows the rich to escape punishment. In RSI, fines (though not civil damages) are scaled to income, and all revenues from fines go into the Victim's Compensation Fund, so that government isn't tempted to use fines as a source of income.

When traffic enforcement is no longer a revenue-generating activity, it is found that traffic violations are considered no more important than rape or robbery, and are no longer the object of greater law enforcement effort.

RSI sounds like a fine place to live, work and do business.

While you're at it, consider rationalizing bail. Drug dealers pay cash and go free while small timers are incarcerated for petty theft.

I think that we should scrap the bail system. Anybody who's arrested is PRESUMED INNOCENT. Therefore, they should automatically be released (under surveillance of course) and NOT be held in jail until trial.

They aren't holding them in prison because they commited a crime, they place bail if they believe the person is either a flight risk or a danger to themselves or others. And insome special cases, do not allow any contact with any other humans other than thier lawyer, because they believe it would be too signifigant risk to allow them to talk to anyone else. (like the members of Al Queda who are on trial or someobdy like charles manson who has a cult following).

Even though it may be appropriate in this case, don't go responding with that Tomas Jefferson quote, we've all heard it before, and I'll just reply with a quote from Voltaire.

They place bail automatically, genius. It's based on the crime and has nothing to do with the particular accused.

And why quote a whole block of text (with two interpolated quotes) when only one item is relevant to your post? No time to edit?

Borogravia Moldavi proposes seizure of all assets of any convicted felon and time in prison. Thus the poor would still go to jail and the rich would also, plus they would have nothing to look forward to if they did indeed get out (The Grand Duchy has it's own open-door policy when it comes to prisons...they only open one way) so white collar crime should be curbed.

They place bail automatically, genius. It's based on the crime and has nothing to do with the particular accused.

The first part of your argument would have been good if you hadn't added the sarcastic quip, now you just sound like an ass who can't debate reasonably (which I'm guessing isn't too far form the truth). What TGM was advocating was the complete removal of bail though, not just letting judges decide to automatically bail the defendant in some cases. And it does have to do with the particular accused, if a very rich person is being tried for murder they will set bail much higher or not even offer it because they are more likely to be a flight risk then a poor person.

And there is also the matter of Special Administrative measures, which I mentioned earlier, which has nothing to do with the crime, only the type of individual accused.

And why quote a whole block of text (with two interpolated quotes) when only one item is relevant to your post? No time to edit?

Exactly, I'm lazy.