[masterzora]

I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the equation. It's not about the relative rates of traffic violations among the poor vs everyone else; it's about the relative impact the same fine has.

If you have comfortable amounts of wealth and/or income and get hit with a $500 fine you might be annoyed but you can pay it and go on your way.

But for the poor it's not so simple. First, that $500 represents a much larger burden. Even if they do scrape together the money to actually pay the fine, it might mean other bills would have to go unpaid, for example. And if they don't or can't get the money to pay the fine, those outstanding fines can get additional fees tacked on like Vigilant's 25%.

So it's not about seeking out the poor disproportionately more than the rich; it's about how the same punishment is actually more punishing.

[Karunamon]

I can accept that, but then we're left right back where we started.

Income based fines would be (rightly) struck down based on the equal protection clause to the constitution. They might even survive introduction to state legislation, but the moment someone with the resources contests it, it'll fall.

Not having the fines is not tenable, seeing as how it's the only way the law has any teeth.

Between a rock and a hard place. And seeing as how these laws are generally to society's benefit, just dropping them isn't valid either.

[zbyte64]

If the fine is an equal percentage for all, one could make a compelling constitutional argument that it applies equally to all. The same argument has been made against progressive tax and have been ruled without merit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_a...

[lg]

community service?