Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jul 19, 2019.
that definitely would fall under "Cruel and unusual punishment"
I wonder how much of that is going back into the community and how much is lining the pockets of the local government officials. The amounts are just ridiculous.
Oh my, it's Florida with the crazy stuff again. Maybe "Florida Man" got a new job and this was his first assignment!
That is a crazy amount to be fined, I really hope it works out for the lady in the end.
Slightly off topic, but I personally think that any fines or fees imposed by the government should be income based. Having the government pass laws, and issue a flat-rate fine for violating those laws creates a class-based society, where one with the means can violate the law with relative impunity, while those without means can suffer a serious financial hardship for violating the same laws.
The above article is a great example of this. She is fined for double her yearly income, for essentially just relatively minor infractions.
There are many european countries that do income based fines and honestly, I'm a bit on the fence on their validity as they can very much become "cruel or unusual" even for "rich" people
For example, NHL player Leo Komorov back in his home country received a speeding fine. But because his salary was in the millions for a couple years, his fine for a minor speeding infraction resulted in 10's of thousands in fees.
I don't know if many other countries have this in their constitution, but in Canada, we have a right to be free from "Cruel or unusual" punishments. Effectively, the punishment must be considered reasonable and appopriate for the crime committed. It's very easy to argue that minor speeding infraction receiving a fine of 10's of thousands would fall under that banner since it's unreasonable that a minor speeding infraction can scale towards requiring thousands of dollars in fees
Sue to government of Florida for violating the 8th. Even the Federal Gub'ment fears violation the Constitution.
or more explicitly "excessive fines shall not be imposed".
see Timbs v Indiana.
The problem is that there is no standard for excessive fines-- and I doubt that any fair standard can be established without scaling it to income--but that'd be SOCIALIST.
Somewhat relatedly, Andrew Anglin was sued for being a nazi halfwit in Montana. He didn't show up for court, and consequently, the judge awarded 14 million in damages, including 10 Million in punitive damages.
since he didn't show up for court, Anglin is on the hook for the full amount, as if pandering to nazis was a 333 million dollar business. Frankly it's difficult to maintain any sympathy for someone with a big old swastica tattooed on his chest, but sometimes courts throw around dollar figures with no regard to economic reality.
I am not sure I would consider that "cruel or unusual", and totally fits my point.
If that NHL player got a flat rate type of fine, what would be the incentive for not violating the law?
One of the counties in the state that I live in has been utilizing speeding cameras, where the only violation is a $100 fine. If Leo Komorov or some other multi-millionaire commuted in one of these areas, they could speed as much as they want with relative impunity. If the lady mention in the article got a $100 speeding ticket, that could be potentially a financial hardship for her.
or for wearing the correct color socks, or refraining from dancing, or for making obeisance to the flag?
He'll feel it just as bad as a normal person would feel 100$.
Huh? There isn't a cost/damage created by speeding and the fine shouldn't be used to line city budgets. No it is supposed to be a punishment, hence it needs to be felt.
From the link in the OP,
It fined a couple $31,000 for fixing their roof without a permit after a tree fell on it during a hurricane.
No, that is straight up out-of-line. The city needs to lose its charter.
Believe it or not, but there's a lot of rich people in Montana. Very under the radar people who lead fairly normal lives in the eyes of the public. That law makes a lot of sense.
$100,000 for an overgrown garden seems ridiculous. Surely the fine should be the cost of the city tidying it up - if that’s even required.
It does, except, heavy undergrowth attracts critters, which hide out in there and threaten the pressed, pleated and sanitary existence of the residents. Much more importantly, though, part of the fine was for a “stagnant swimming pool”, which is another way of saying “mosquito nursery”.
That’s worth a heavy fine to be fair. Dengue fever and all that.
According to the article, the fine is "at a house she no longer owned".
I'd like to know why someone should be held responsible for the upkeep on property they don't own.
Even if the conditions existed at the time of the sale, the buyer becomes the person responsible for upkeep, in addition to taking on all prior debts and liens. That should be true even if the property's owner is a bank, and they own the property because the owner defaulted on a mortgage.
OP story detail
Allen moved to Dunedin in 2005 to be with her boyfriend, Keith, who later became her husband. She bought a bungalow-style house … planted palm trees in the yard and restored the pool that had sat empty for years.
Then the financial crisis hit. Allen … lost her house in the wave of foreclosures … She signed an agreement with U.S. Bank National Association allowing the foreclosure and moved out. … In early 2014, three years after Allen moved out, a code inspector came to the house, which had been vacant. Brown palm fronds littered the overgrown backyard. A neighbor told the inspector that something dead may have been rotting there. The swimming pool had turned into a bright green, mosquito-infested cesspool.
City officials sent notices of the problems to Allen, who was still listed as the homeowner in county property records. Then they started fining her $100 a day. The letters mailed to Allen were returned undeliverable with no forwarding address. The city kept fining her anyway.
Her name (had) stayed in property records because the foreclosure was not finalized until late 2014. By then, the city had been fining Allen for several months. (U.S. Bank National Association said it did not have control of Allen's loan and referred questions about the case to the company that serviced Allen's mortgage, which did not immediately respond.)
Our society is clearly structured in a way that facilitates buck-passing and generally irresponsible/reckless behavior. Why should a foreclosure proceed before the note holder has a new owner on line?
If the residents expect to be kicked out, they may not properly care for the place. I'm wondering why this still shows up in their name. You would think the local bureaucracy would be able to assign someone to review this kind of thing in greater detail, particularly if letters received a "return to sender".