These are trying economic times. Just ask the petty criminal who is slapped with civil or criminal fines for everything from driving without having a license in his possession to shoplifting from Walmart. It can be tough to come up with the cash to pay a $340 fine for attempting a five finger discount on a $20 DVD. Yes, this is a stupid crime-- who could possibly be that desperate to own a movie? And yes, it is an expensive nuisance for the retailer. And yes, to maintain a civil society we need a system that provides proper punishment and deterrence. I get that and applaud that. This is not about that.
Through my own empirical study (about a decade of working misdemeanors in various municipal courts) I have found that even in the best of times very few people have the financial resources to pay their fines outright; fortunately for them, the court offers a pretty reasonable interest free payment plan for a flat $20 fee. Most of the people who commit these crimes and/or civil infractions are among the lowest classes in our society. Many of them are simply mentally ill.
The interesting part of the fine method of dealing with such miscreants is that the fines themselves often form the basis for the succeeding violation such as when their license becomes suspended for failure to pay and they drive anyway because they have to get to work or to their girlfriend's house; or they shoplift again because their meager entitlement payments don’t provide them enough money to live on and pay their fine payments. Clearly, someone who cannot pay these fines cannot pay for insurance. A ticket for suspended license and no insurance adds up to nearly $1800. A good majority of misdemeanor and civil violators are living in poverty and the fine system works very well to prolong that status and often exacerbate it.
And a hefty percentage of these folks, such as the mentally ill, are on disability. If I had a penny for every time a defendant replied “I am on social security and have to wait for my check to come in” to a query regarding their ability to pay I would be on a beach somewhere right now and not hanging around here trying to make a living. So for these people the fines represent a transfer of our tax dollars from one program to another.
How ironic then that these are the people (and until recently a large subgroup consisting of illegal immigrants) upon whose backs we have chosen to finance elections. Yes, you read that correctly, this is where 53% of the money that fills the Arizona Clean Elections coffers comes from.
Of course, the elections system only gets a small percentage of the large percentage increase in the fine represented by the various surcharges that are tacked on each and every fine assessed in this state. True, most of the money raised in this manner is at least tangentially related to administering the criminal system which is a proper function of government. But some of the things mixed up in there have a remote connection. And funding elections has no connection at all. In my view this is taxation without representation and very insidious because it can never be properly challenged as such.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
Using as an example a violation that carries a $250 fine actually costs the defendant $479:
$ 250 base fine
20 probation fee (added to everycivil or criminal charge to fund probation departments)
117 (47%) criminal justice enhancement fund, a long list of programs share in this ranging from
fingerprints to county jails
17 (7%)pays the State, County and City costs of chasing down criminals
18 (7%) pays for the DNA testing program
32 (13%) medical services enhancement fund-uses include adding substance abuse
considerations to emergency medical response protocols and seeding the state spinal and
head injury trust fund
25 (10%) Clean Elections
479 Fine + 84% surcharges
In another ironic twist, the Clean Elections Act itself created several class one misdemeanors that apply to people who knowingly abuse the system. So sometimes the criminal actually funding this thing may also be the recipient of the dough. If that isn’t turning justice on its head I am the flying nun.
But back to my point: the largest amount of money for funding elections in this state comes from the people who are most likely least able to afford it. And in the case of felons who pay these fines (which are probably even slower in actually hitting the coffers given that most of them are in prison and therefore not working and therefore not paying fines) they can’t even participate in the system for they are no longer eligible to vote.
And it is most unlikely that the people who can’t even figure out how to keep their driver’s license active are able to figure out how to register and actually vote themselves so that probably applies to the misdemeanants as well. But of course, this is pure conjecture.
When you fund your government by surcharges that are hidden in the fines that the vast majority of the citizens are not even aware of you are doing government a serious disservice. In this budget axing that we are currently experiencing, these surcharges don’t ever come up, nor do the programs that they fund.
Now I am all for the check off box on the income tax return as a means of allowing people to contribute to elections funding which is entirely voluntary. For those who don’t like the political process this is a nice way to feel like you are participating without having to give money to a particular party or be identified with a particular candidate. Of course, they have no control over how that money is spent, but not to worry, as government has created an entire agency to do that job for them. So they know what to expect.
But I can’t believe the poor shoplifter ever gives this whole idea even a thought. Unless of course he was able to get all the way out of the store with the Manchurian Candidate safely tucked between his legs.
References: azcleanelections.gov as of 2/3/2010;
ARS § 12-114.01
ARS § 41-2401
ARS § 41-2421J
ARS § 41-2419
ARS § 36-2219.01
ARS § 16-954
No comments:
Post a Comment