John Oliver: Municipal Violations

He's saying he doesn't watch his show but he's watched enough of his dumb videos that people keep posting to get the gist of his gimmickry.

And I agree with him completely. This guy's pandering puts Jerry Springer of the 90's to shame.

 

1) He responds to prerecorded clips edited by his army of staffers (he only lets the audience hear what he wants them to hear).

2) His responses are scripted, also by his army of staffers.

3) He has an audience of clapping seals cheering him on.

4) there is no counterpoint/refutation (watch Oliver get schooled by Rand Paul on TDS to see why he doesn't permit that)

 

maybe fines should be regressive like income tax

A $100 fine is much more punitive to a person living on minimum wage or assistance than a richer person committing the same offense. People with the ability to easily pay fines or hire attorneys will not fall victim to the circle of hell the people in the story do.

I'd be all for community service terms rather than jail terms for nonviolent offenders, society gets something rather than paying for punishment.

 

I absolutely abhore the general complaint, that I think Oliver stressed a bit too much, of poor people getting screwed by these fines in the first place.

While he didn't come out and say it, and no one here has, there is definitely an undercurrent of "these are just really really minor infractions... let em go, they're poor!"

I've been in an accident that wasn't my fault where the other party sped off. I only got a partial plate. Never found him. Was clearly uninsured and probably undocumented. **** that!

But beyond that, a piece that includes a guy complaining about the repercussions of stealing a beer... well, it leaves a sour taste...

ALL THAT SAID, I agree with what is probably the main point of the piece. Private corporations have no role here. Certain government municipalities rely way way too heavily on these fines, creating clear conflicts. The fines themselves being illogical in the charges and surcharges, etc. And the system of interest accrual and repayment making no sense at all.

The punishment does need to fit the crime. But it is also a complicated answer. The punishment for steal a $2 beer should be more than just repay the $2... it's not just what is stolen, but the act itself that is being punished. But what the punishment should be... I don't know. I really really really don't like the idea of inserting private corporations in the system. I think a fine that includes some kind of repayment, and then "work" of some kind makes sense... with that work being charitable perhaps in nature. Can't pay off this $25 fine, that is now $50 because of multiple late payments? Ok... the $50 remains outstanding, but you have to do x,y,z or whatever until it is paid off. That's too complicated to ever happen, but seems like a better approach. Ticketed for speeding, driving without a license, whatever... ok, you have to pay your fine AND work on a road crew that cleans up after accidents... something like that.

 

you must be new to show business. you just described almost every show ever.

 

(delete) done got moved to D&D.

 

I suppose the argument is that it costs money to manage a government supervised payment plan, but it costs more money to incarcerate people.

 

cardpire and Commodore have it right. I've seen enough of his viral videos to get his schtick. Like fallenphoenix said, the media purposefully sensationalizes stories without presenting objective data. I watched his pharma video, and watched half of this one. If he did present the other side of the story in the latter half, I'm sorry I missed it. He should probably talk about both sides of the coin in equal fairness before distancing viewers like myself.

That is an option, but there comes the complication of if the community service requirements outweigh the monetary value of wages worked. It could work. Municipalities should just be careful not to create any extra work or financial obligations to burden the offender. Fine or community service that can be spread over XX weeks so they can still meet their work hours.

I absolutely agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Some of those fines, surcharges, and late fees snowballed out of control. In a perfect world, payment plans shouldn't have a surcharge, but it does create a negative balance that the entity has to operate with, continue business accordingly, and is extra work for that entity to setup. There's logical reasons for surcharges with payment plans, and I think it's up to the entity to decide to implement or not. For those with financial hardships, there should be a way to reduce said fees.

One thing I don't understand about people who b**** and moan all the time is why not suggest an idea for a solution? You have to consider both sides to compromise to a fair solution. If all you do is b**** and moan, or suggest a one-sided solution that's outlandish, nobody will take you seriously. That's why I hardly take Oliver seriously.

 

Simple. For any municipality that depend on violations for over 50% of their revenue, they should consider increasing tax revenue. This is a dangerous conflict of interest that must be addressed.

 

Not only did you not watch the video (and pretty damn proud of yourself for doing so). You also failed to read other responses which talked about your bolded part.

Maybe the government, instead of maintaining their operations by going after these fines, should simply generate revenue through legit means like taxes like every other developed nation in the world.

 

And if you can't afford the payments in the first place? Is the solution really to tack on yet more late fees or sell the fine to a corporate entity which charges a monthly fee that in some cases is even more than the fine was?

 

I find it interesting the IRS can garnish fines but municiaplities can't or haven't considered it.

The rollover fines are probably a good money maker, but if people have paid the original fine in principal, why can't a court order a garnishment over time for subsequent penalties rather than blindly adhering to a ****ty costly procedure?

I'd rather open the option up for commy service but we live in a society where taxes are unAmerican so penalties for not getting your **** together are higher than other countries.

 

I think there's already a mechanism in place for states and federal government since they collect income and unemployment taxes - it's just a matter of withholding additional funds. But municipalities aren't involved in the payroll process, so the logistics would be complicated. I think it would be a nightmare for both employers and the cities.

 

I think citations should be based on a percentage of your income.

Or....


Have it to where once you get 5 citations (or some number) THEN you get some penalty or something.

Citations are expensive. That's why I don't care to write a lot of them. They're expensive and a lot of people out there are going through lean times. Thankfully, officer discretion is allowed. Someone who slow rolls a stop sign where you can see in a mile each direction, or going ten over isn't such a big deal to me.

 

How hard is it to put on your seatbelt?

 

I thought you stupid conservatives were against gov't regulations!

I guess it only applies when it affects you, but when it hits the poor and blackies it's ok.

Anyway, these kinds of comments reveal that you aren't a true conservative, you're just a d******d hiding behind that veil.

 

We are. I was pointing out Oliver bemoaning people getting nickel and dimed by the regulatory state he loves.

It's not ok when it hits anyone.

 

This guy is a tool. And the sheep eat it up

 

We need a regulation to stop this regulation