this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
205 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 20 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Catching crimals is almost never profitable... but it's still important and has positive externalities for discouraging future crime.

In this case though we've really got to ask how much we care about this. Some people are going to ride transit for free, we generally want those people to get a free ride rather than not having access to public transit.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not about profitability. It's about the extraordinary expense to discourage at best a minor misdemeanor that costs relatively very little in comparison. You could probably achieve the same effect paying one cop to monitor random stations and fine people as the do it. There are much more important things that cops could be doing that's actually worth spending $150 million. Or you could just divert a fraction of that money to subsidize public transit.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's the point. Opportunity costs.

How many criminals, real criminals, could have been arrested and tried for that much money?

Or how many low income families could have gotten free/subsidized tickets?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

How many cars could've been removed from the streets by simply letting everybody ride transit for free? That's the biggest opportunity cost of them all.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Or even is it worth charging at all?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Catching crimals is almost never profitable… but it’s still important and has positive externalities for discouraging future crime.

The "crime" of transit fare evasion has bigger positive externalities than discouraging it does.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

This is why people are campaigning to remove the user-fees from Transit. That's the proper way to do that.

[–] samus7070@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Have you ever driven through a small town and seen a police car sitting right where the speed limit drops? Those tickets and the kangaroo mayor’s courts are the only reason some of those towns are still alive.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Yup! My grandmother actually lived right next to a town with a 20 mph speed limit on their center road that jumped up to 60 as soon as you left the town in either direction. It made the town an immense amount of money and was ridiculously predatory.

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well said. They could offer cheaper tickets and invest less in law enforcement involved in this. Less people will be criminalized that way.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but it feels weird to say:

Less people will be criminalized that way.

It's the act that's a crime, not the people.

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Depends on the perspective. Imo it's structural issues that can be solved if you rework the structure. Most people who don't pay for their tickets don't have the money, but would pay if it would be affordable.

In Germany you could see this happen when they pushed the 9€ ticket where you could travel all of Germany for the month.. for 9€.

It was a huge success and I'm sure many people who didn't buy tickets before did buy them then, simply because it was affordable, accessible and more chill.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with my point

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

No worries lol it happens