The criminal element is alive and well.....in the Mass court system.

[Byteme]

Gotta' love the state of Mass.

Just read in Autoweek that they are charging you court costs even if you are found innocent when you take a traffic ticket to court. 

This sounds to me like a way to both enhance revenue and dissuade people from contesting tickets.

[dazzleman]

That doesn't seem right.

[Xer0]

My mom told me a story about her friend who went to court to contest a $110 speeding ticket.  She went and contested the ticket and was socked with a $250 "minimum" court fee.  Nice.

This was in Illinois by the way.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

If the charges are dismissed there is no way in hell you should be charged court cost! SMH!

[Byteme]

If the charges are dismissed there is no way in hell you should be charged court cost! SMH!

Unless you are the Mass court system and you are trying to either raise revenue or discourage prople from contesting tickets. 

[NomisR]

This is legal??

[bing_oh]

This is legal??

That's actually an excellent question. I'm not sure if it's legal or not (and the devil may very well be in the details). Normally, if you're found not guilty (btw, just for John's reference, you're never found "innocent" in court), the court costs are assessed to the State.

How you would go about appealing such court costs would be complicated at best. The judge and court both technically have sovereign immunity, so you couldn't sue them without permission. I suppose someone could refuse to pay court costs, be charged with contempt to court for doing so, and fight/appeal that contempt ruling to dispute the court's right to assess those charges. Seems like alot of trouble, though.

[MX793]

NYS tacks on a $175-$200 court fee for tickets.  I'm not sure if it gets waived if you are found "not guilty" or if you still have to pay it regardless of the outcome.

[MaxPower]

The courts in my jurisdiction have surcharges on every conviction.  A tax & tip, we call it.  But that's only for convictions--I can think of quite a few reasons that would make a universal court fee illegal.

[Byteme]

(btw, just for John's reference, you're never found "innocent" in court), the court costs are assessed to the State.

I know but I had to dumb it down for the audience here.   

[Soup DeVille]

That's actually an excellent question. I'm not sure if it's legal or not (and the devil may very well be in the details). Normally, if you're found not guilty (btw, just for John's reference, you're never found "innocent" in court), the court costs are assessed to the State.

How you would go about appealing such court costs would be complicated at best. The judge and court both technically have sovereign immunity, so you couldn't sue them without permission. I suppose someone could refuse to pay court costs, be charged with contempt to court for doing so, and fight/appeal that contempt ruling to dispute the court's right to assess those charges. Seems like alot of trouble, though.

Seeing as I have a right to due process, it seems somewhat sketchy to make me pay for being found not guilty.

[dazzleman]

Unless you are the Mass court system and you are trying to either raise revenue or discourage prople from contesting tickets. 

What would you expect from the Massachusetts SSR?  If this flies there, I'd expect to see Connecticut adopting it soon.  After all, we have a lot of vital expenses to pay, such as huge pensions for public workers.  We must squeeze the productive dry in every way possible.

[bing_oh]

Seeing as I have a right to due process, it seems somewhat sketchy to make me pay for being found not guilty.

Yet, you're not actually paying a fine per se but for various court-related tasks. Courts frequently charge for things like subpeonas or stenographers related to civil and criminal actions. As I said, the devil's probably in the details on this one.

[bing_oh]

After all, we have a lot of vital expenses to pay, such as huge pensions for public workers.

I didn't expect to see you toeing the "evil public employee pension" line, Dave. You're normally better informed than that. You do realize that it's generally alot of misrepresentation, spindoctoring, and political BS, right? If you want details about the things like how "lucrative" my pension is, how much I actually pay into it, and what public employees give away at contract time to keep those pensions, I'd be more than happy to give them to you.

[dazzleman]

Yet, you're not actually paying a fine per se but for various court-related tasks. Courts frequently charge for things like subpeonas or stenographers related to civil and criminal actions. As I said, the devil's probably in the details on this one.

I don't have a problem with guilty people paying court fees, but it seems wrong to charge fees to people found not guilty (even if a lot of them probably are actually guilty).

Connecticut has a 2-tier system for traffic violations (ask me how I know ).  Your first court visit is with a state's attorney, who will generally offer a plea deal for a lower fine and the waiving of court costs, if you agree to forego a full trial.  If you don't take that deal, then you go to full trial, with a judge and the police officer.  If you are found guilty at that trial, then you have to pay the fine and court costs.  I don't have a problem with that system.

[dazzleman]

I didn't expect to see you toeing the "evil public employee pension" line, Dave. You're normally better informed than that. You do realize that it's generally alot of misrepresentation, spindoctoring, and political BS, right? If you want details about the things like how "lucrative" my pension is, how much I actually pay into it, and what public employees give away at contract time to keep those pensions, I'd be more than happy to give them to you.

I didn't use the word "evil."  I am speaking more about local issues.  I can't say what the situation is in Ohio.  But in this part of the country, public employee pensions are riddled with corruption and dirty union deals with politicians, and we have people retiring in their 40s getting paid pensions that are more than they made working.  We have similar problems with abuse of disability.  I don't begrudge anybody proper pay or a pension, but the system wasn't designed for people to be collecting large sums for 40 years, and it's simply unaffordable.  It's not so much a political issue as a math issue.  The numbers aren't there, and we can't continue to pay pensions on this basis.  Again, I don't know your personal situation, so I make no judgment of it, but I do know the situation we have here with rapidly escalating costs and corrupt deals that have totally screwed the taxpayers.

[bing_oh]

I didn't use the word "evil."  I am speaking more about local issues.  I can't say what the situation is in Ohio.  But in this part of the country, public employee pensions are riddled with corruption and dirty union deals with politicians, and we have people retiring in their 40s getting paid pensions that are more than they made working.  We have similar problems with abuse of disability.  I don't begrudge anybody proper pay or a pension, but the system wasn't designed for people to be collecting large sums for 40 years, and it's simply unaffordable.  It's not so much a political issue as a math issue.  The numbers aren't there, and we can't continue to pay pensions on this basis.  Again, I don't know your personal situation, so I make no judgment of it, but I do know the situation we have here with rapidly escalating costs and corrupt deals that have totally screwed the taxpayers.

People have alot of misunderstandings about public employee pensions. For example, it sounds really good to be able to retire at 48 years old and 25 years of service (that's minimum retirement under Ohio Police and Fire...my pension). The local politicos want people to think that's FULL retirement. Not so. In fact, that's (I believe) 55%. If my retirement were based upon $50k a year (which would be a good year foir me at this point), I'd be making about $28k a year in retirement...not exactly rolling in the dough. Most every cop I know either gets another job after retirement and/or has a supplemental retirement. And, the politicos want the public to think that I don't contribute anything to retirement...that it's all on the public's dime. Again, a falsehood. The biggest deduction from my paycheck is retirement. Does the city contribute to my retirement? Sure it does...a subject that comes up every time we go into contract negotiations and raises are negotiated, because the city wants to decrease our pay to make up for how much they pay into our retirement. Oh, and then there's the line that public pensions are bankrupting cities and states because they had to pay so much when someone retires. The funny thing is, that's the city/county/state's fault because many of them don't make the contributions into the retirement system each pay period like the employee does. So, when retirement time comes around, they have to fork out a huge sum to make up for all of the missed payments from the last 25+ years.

Now, maybe the public retirement in your area is horribly corrupt. I can't say. But, I'd recommend you don't take the rumors and comments from politicians at face value. My retirement system in Ohio is more the rule than the exception and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the one in your state runs in a similar manner.

[dazzleman]

People have alot of misunderstandings about public employee pensions. For example, it sounds really good to be able to retire at 48 years old and 25 years of service (that's minimum retirement under Ohio Police and Fire...my pension). The local politicos want people to think that's FULL retirement. Not so. In fact, that's (I believe) 55%. If my retirement were based upon $50k a year (which would be a good year foir me at this point), I'd be making about $28k a year in retirement...not exactly rolling in the dough. Most every cop I know either gets another job after retirement and/or has a supplemental retirement. And, the politicos want the public to think that I don't contribute anything to retirement...that it's all on the public's dime. Again, a falsehood. The biggest deduction from my paycheck is retirement. Does the city contribute to my retirement? Sure it does...a subject that comes up every time we go into contract negotiations and raises are negotiated, because the city wants to decrease our pay to make up for how much they pay into our retirement. Oh, and then there's the line that public pensions are bankrupting cities and states because they had to pay so much when someone retires. The funny thing is, that's the city/county/state's fault because many of them don't make the contributions into the retirement system each pay period like the employee does. So, when retirement time comes around, they have to fork out a huge sum to make up for all of the missed payments from the last 25+ years.

Now, maybe the public retirement in your area is horribly corrupt. I can't say. But, I'd recommend you don't take the rumors and comments from politicians at face value. My retirement system in Ohio is more the rule than the exception and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the one in your state runs in a similar manner.

The reality is that most people can't get anything to retire at 48 years old.  People are paying taxes so that you can have a benefit they don't have.

There's no point in getting a whole argument about the philosphy behind the system or how it works.  The numbers don't lie.  Costs for pensions are escalating at a furious pace, at least around here, and at this rate, we'll have to eliminate vital services in order to keep servicing them.  It can't happen.

This is all part of a larger problem.  The unions made a deal with the devil with the politicians.  Rather than get better pay today, which would show up in the politicians' line item right away, they conspired with the politicians to push the cost off into the future, by taking inflated pension benefits in lieu of better pay today.  Then, the politicians failed to fund the pension funds because they made unrealistic assumptions about investment returns, and that allowed them to blow the money on something else.  The public as usual was unaware and paying no attention.

This issue is not unique to public employees, but it hits the taxpayers in the most direct way.  The whole "buy now, pay later" mentality has infected our entire economy, and this issue is part of it.  As the baby boomers retire, we face a financial tsunami because this generation undersaved, overconsumed, and counted on escalating home equity (which will not be forthcoming) to effectively fund their retirement.  For those who failed to save, or who front-loaded their consumption and back-loaded their costs, there is going to be a major decline in standard of living.  There's no way around it.

Something needs to seriously change, because continuing the present system isn't an option.

[bing_oh]

The reality is that most people can't get anything to retire at 48 years old.  People are paying taxes so that you can have a benefit they don't have.

From my perspective, I have to do things for 25+ years that most taxpayers don't and would never do. That "benefit" is compensation for 25+ years of working weekends and holidays, shift work, missing birthdays, anniversaries, and other important family functions, and risking my health, welfare, and mental well-being the whole time. Yes, I chose the job and I like doing it, but I can tell you without a doubt that you'd be hard pressed to find people of the necessary intelligence, education, and background desired for a modern LEO without proper compensation. Cut compensation and you'll see a marked decline in the quality of candidates, an increase in the good people leaving the field for greener pastures after short tenures, and a return to old school corrupt policing (you see all three things in places like the NYPD where new officers are paid so low that they qualify for welfare).

There's no point in getting a whole argument about the philosphy behind the system or how it works.  The numbers don't lie.  Costs for pensions are escalating at a furious pace, at least around here, and at this rate, we'll have to eliminate vital services in order to keep servicing them.  It can't happen.

This is all part of a larger problem.  The unions made a deal with the devil with the politicians.  Rather than get better pay today, which would show up in the politicians' line item right away, they conspired with the politicians to push the cost off into the future, by taking inflated pension benefits in lieu of better pay today.  Then, the politicians failed to fund the pension funds because they made unrealistic assumptions about investment returns, and that allowed them to blow the money on something else.  The public as usual was unaware and paying no attention.

This issue is not unique to public employees, but it hits the taxpayers in the most direct way.  The whole "buy now, pay later" mentality has infected our entire economy, and this issue is part of it.  As the baby boomers retire, we face a financial tsunami because this generation undersaved, overconsumed, and counted on escalating home equity (which will not be forthcoming) to effectively fund their retirement.  For those who failed to save, or who front-loaded their consumption and back-loaded their costs, there is going to be a major decline in standard of living.  There's no way around it.

Something needs to seriously change, because continuing the present system isn't an option.

You'll notice that the pension issue didn't really come up until we were neck deep in the recession. Yet, we've had this pension system across the nation for decades. In all reality, the pension of the previous years was better than it is today...benefits have been cut and employee contributions have gone up in recent years. Could it be that the pension costs aren't as much "escalating at a furious pace" as the politicians are blaming a combination of the recession and across-the-board financial mismanagement on the employees? Could it be that they're trying to balance their pork-loaded budgets on the backs of the employees without cutting the political fat first? It's an easy time to blame unionized government employees in this country, even if the blame is totally unwarranted.

[dazzleman]

From my perspective, I have to do things for 25+ years that most taxpayers don't and would never do. That "benefit" is compensation for 25+ years of working weekends and holidays, shift work, missing birthdays, anniversaries, and other important family functions, and risking my health, welfare, and mental well-being the whole time. Yes, I chose the job and I like doing it, but I can tell you without a doubt that you'd be hard pressed to find people of the necessary intelligence, education, and background desired for a modern LEO without proper compensation. Cut compensation and you'll see a marked decline in the quality of candidates, an increase in the good people leaving the field for greener pastures after short tenures, and a return to old school corrupt policing (you see all three things in places like the NYPD where new officers are paid so low that they qualify for welfare).

You'll notice that the pension issue didn't really come up until we were neck deep in the recession. Yet, we've had this pension system across the nation for decades. In all reality, the pension of the previous years was better than it is today...benefits have been cut and employee contributions have gone up in recent years. Could it be that the pension costs aren't as much "escalating at a furious pace" as the politicians are blaming a combination of the recession and across-the-board financial mismanagement on the employees? Could it be that they're trying to balance their pork-loaded budgets on the backs of the employees without cutting the political fat first? It's an easy time to blame unionized government employees in this country, even if the blame is totally unwarranted.

It's a combination of things.  People are living longer, so the pensions are being paid out for longer.  It's the same problem we have with social security.  If people are going to live longer, they're going to have to work longer too, unless they save more of their income while they're working.  There's really no way around it.

There's also mismanagement by the politicians, of course.  That goes without saying.  They failed to contribute to the pension funds when the market was doing well, and blew the money on other things, like our growing culture of dependency, among other things.

I surely don't think public employee pensions are the whole problem.  They're part of a larger problem that we have to come to grips with, or we will go down like a sinking ship.

The unions have done the same thing they did with the Big 3 (and many other companies).  They went for the best benefits they could get, regardless of ability to pay.  After they helped kill off the manufacturing companies, they set out after public employees, because they thought their employer couldn't be put out of business; they could just keep increasing taxes on working people.  I've seen the attitude of many of the unions types around here; they'd be perfectly happy for the rest of us to be paying 90% of our income in taxes, as long as they got what they wanted.

[bing_oh]

The unions have done the same thing they did with the Big 3 (and many other companies).  They went for the best benefits they could get, regardless of ability to pay.  After they helped kill off the manufacturing companies, they set out after public employees, because they thought their employer couldn't be put out of business; they could just keep increasing taxes on working people.  I've seen the attitude of many of the unions types around here; they'd be perfectly happy for the rest of us to be paying 90% of our income in taxes, as long as they got what they wanted.

I don't agree with the idea that public sector unions are the same as private sector ones. Private sector unions have huge power over their employers because they have the ability to effect their employers directly through strikes/lockouts/slowdowns. Public sector unions (specifically public safety unions like police and fire), by law, lack this power. Instead, we rely upon third-party binding arbitration when we come to an impasse. For this reason, we have little real "pull" to force our employers into unsustainable benefits and are much more likely to come to a mutually-beneficial middle ground. If the unions are given outrageous benefits, you can blame the employer for agreeing to them, because arbitrators have a looooong track record of nixing such benefits and cutting things right down the middle.

[bing_oh]

Let me pose the issue to you in a different way, Dave.

As a citizen, what is your public safety worth? What are you willing to pay for qualified firefighters, EMS, and police officers?

I'm a college educated LEO with about 12 years of experience. I test in the "gifted" range of intelligence. I have a very clean criminal background. I test as "an excellent candidate for law enforcement" in psychological tests. In short, I'm a good candidate for LE in the 21st century United States. What am I worth to you and your community when it comes to pay and benefits? As a citizen, are you willing to pay a premium for candidates like me or would you be willing to risk things like abuse of power and corruption for a less qualified candidate who would accept lower pay? In short, are you willing to accept the potential downsides that go along with saving money in public safety?

[dazzleman]

I don't agree with the idea that public sector unions are the same as private sector ones. Private sector unions have huge power over their employers because they have the ability to effect their employers directly through strikes/lockouts/slowdowns. Public sector unions (specifically public safety unions like police and fire), by law, lack this power. Instead, we rely upon third-party binding arbitration when we come to an impasse. For this reason, we have little real "pull" to force our employers into unsustainable benefits and are much more likely to come to a mutually-beneficial middle ground. If the unions are given outrageous benefits, you can blame the employer for agreeing to them, because arbitrators have a looooong track record of nixing such benefits and cutting things right down the middle.

What the public sector unions lacked in terms of ability to strike they make up for by buying off the politicians.

[dazzleman]

Let me pose the issue to you in a different way, Dave.

As a citizen, what is your public safety worth? What are you willing to pay for qualified firefighters, EMS, and police officers?

I'm a college educated LEO with about 12 years of experience. I test in the "gifted" range of intelligence. I have a very clean criminal background. I test as "an excellent candidate for law enforcement" in psychological tests. In short, I'm a good candidate for LE in the 21st century United States. What am I worth to you and your community when it comes to pay and benefits? As a citizen, are you willing to pay a premium for candidates like me or would you be willing to risk things like abuse of power and corruption for a less qualified candidate who would accept lower pay? In short, are you willing to accept the potential downsides that go along with saving money in public safety?

Let's be clear.  I don't think LEOs should be paid poorly, and I'm considerably more sympathetic to LEOs in general than some other government employees.

Still, I think you have a bit of a blind spot here.  We've been living in a bubble economy, in which we consume more than we produce and borrow the difference, or otherwise pass the costs off into the future through gimmicks like substituting enhanced pensions for better pay today.  In addition, we're sitting on a demographic time bomb, with huge waves of retirees coming up, and people are living longer than ever but want to retire younger than ever.  It's been a game of financial musical chairs and we're nearing the end of it.

All of us are going to get squeezed as a result, one way or another.  I'll be squeezed through higher taxes, likely reductions in income at some point, and an erosion in the value of the money that I've saved.  Others have had to take jobs that pay considerably less than the jobs they lost.  Some can't get a job at all, or can only find work part-time.  People will have a lower standard of living both while they're working and in retirement, assuming that they're able to retire.

In this environment, it's hard to argue that public workers should be one group of people who should be unaffected.  That is the vibe the unions are giving off.  And it's just not realistic.  Allowing people to start collecting pensions in their 40s is simply a system that is not sustainable and it has to change.  There's no way around it, and it's not a political issue.  It's simple math.

What is happening is that the real value of our work is being reduced, across the board.  Of course, those who had more to start out with will suffer less.  So in this environment, it will be possible to recruit better people with lesser benefits, since their other options have gotten worse too.

I think the unions made a bad trade when they traded higher pay for better pensions.  For public employees, benefits are a much higher share of employee cost than they are for people in the private sector.  But the unions gave up something tangible today to get something in the future.  In effect, they conspired with unscrupulous politicians.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Almost all public pension plans are defined benefit plans whereas almost all pension arrangements in the private sector are defined contribution plans.

What you get out of the defined benefit plan is fixed according to a formula, regardless of the overall pension assets. The defined contribution plan is tied to actual investment returns and what you get out is much more in line with the fiscal realities.

It would not only be fairer to the taxpayers, but it would save a lot of money in the long run if state governments switched over the defined contribution plans.

[bing_oh]

What the public sector unions lacked in terms of ability to strike they make up for by buying off the politicians.

Over 80% of the police departments in this country have less than 50 officers. Many of those, like my department, have even fewer (total of 16 sworn officers, including administration). Do you really think my department has the power to "buy off" politicians to benefit us? Comeon, Dave...that's unrealistic spin put out by the people who want to neuter the public unions. We don't have the power you seem to think we have.

[bing_oh]

Let's be clear.  I don't think LEOs should be paid poorly, and I'm considerably more sympathetic to LEOs in general than some other government employees.

Still, I think you have a bit of a blind spot here.  We've been living in a bubble economy, in which we consume more than we produce and borrow the difference, or otherwise pass the costs off into the future through gimmicks like substituting enhanced pensions for better pay today.  In addition, we're sitting on a demographic time bomb, with huge waves of retirees coming up, and people are living longer than ever but want to retire younger than ever.  It's been a game of financial musical chairs and we're nearing the end of it.

All of us are going to get squeezed as a result, one way or another.  I'll be squeezed through higher taxes, likely reductions in income at some point, and an erosion in the value of the money that I've saved.  Others have had to take jobs that pay considerably less than the jobs they lost.  Some can't get a job at all, or can only find work part-time.  People will have a lower standard of living both while they're working and in retirement, assuming that they're able to retire.

In this environment, it's hard to argue that public workers should be one group of people who should be unaffected.  That is the vibe the unions are giving off.  And it's just not realistic.  Allowing people to start collecting pensions in their 40s is simply a system that is not sustainable and it has to change.  There's no way around it, and it's not a political issue.  It's simple math.

What is happening is that the real value of our work is being reduced, across the board.  Of course, those who had more to start out with will suffer less.  So in this environment, it will be possible to recruit better people with lesser benefits, since their other options have gotten worse too.

You never really answered my question, Dave. You're a member of the public...essentially, people like you are my employer. What am I worth to you? Am I overpaid?

I think the unions made a bad trade when they traded higher pay for better pensions.  For public employees, benefits are a much higher share of employee cost than they are for people in the private sector.  But the unions gave up something tangible today to get something in the future.  In effect, they conspired with unscrupulous politicians.

You make it out like it was a grand conspiracy between the politicians and the public sector unions. Did you consider that it was actually just a screw job by the politicians? You're probably right that we made a bad deal by giving away raises now for retirement later...hindsight's always 20/20. But, I can tell you that the unions didn't go in trying to screw the public. The politicians came to us and said "we need the money now for [insert project here] so we can't afford to give you a raise, but we can save over time and give you a better pension later to make up for it." And, in the end, public workers tend to have a sense of responsibility to the public and saw the benefits of that money being put to use for our communities, so we made the tradeoff. Now, the politicians are saying "we took your raises before, but we can't uphold our end of the bargain now, so you get nothing." Unless you're a politician, that's a piss poor conspiracy, IMHO.

[Soup DeVille]

Yet, you're not actually paying a fine per se but for various court-related tasks. Courts frequently charge for things like subpeonas or stenographers related to civil and criminal actions. As I said, the devil's probably in the details on this one.

Sure. Kind of like charging people you cuff a handcuff rental fee.

[dazzleman]

You never really answered my question, Dave. You're a member of the public...essentially, people like you are my employer. What am I worth to you? Am I overpaid?

You make it out like it was a grand conspiracy between the politicians and the public sector unions. Did you consider that it was actually just a screw job by the politicians? You're probably right that we made a bad deal by giving away raises now for retirement later...hindsight's always 20/20. But, I can tell you that the unions didn't go in trying to screw the public. The politicians came to us and said "we need the money now for [insert project here] so we can't afford to give you a raise, but we can save over time and give you a better pension later to make up for it." And, in the end, public workers tend to have a sense of responsibility to the public and saw the benefits of that money being put to use for our communities, so we made the tradeoff. Now, the politicians are saying "we took your raises before, but we can't uphold our end of the bargain now, so you get nothing." Unless you're a politician, that's a piss poor conspiracy, IMHO.

I realize I didn't answer your question.  I do not think you're overpaid on a current basis, but I do think a 20-years-and-out pension scheme is too generous.  So there's your answer.

It's not the unions' job to protect the public.  It is ultimately a fuckup by the politicians.  But the unions made a bad deal in substituting money today for a promise of money tomorrow.  They banked on an unsustainable promise, and probably wouldn't have if they hadn't been in bed with the sleazy politicians.  You must understand that my view of unions is strongly influenced by being in the New York area.  Here, the unions are a bunch of thuggish bullies, practically organized crime, and they've bought off the politicians.

[dazzleman]

Over 80% of the police departments in this country have less than 50 officers. Many of those, like my department, have even fewer (total of 16 sworn officers, including administration). Do you really think my department has the power to "buy off" politicians to benefit us? Comeon, Dave...that's unrealistic spin put out by the people who want to neuter the public unions. We don't have the power you seem to think we have.

In my state, we have a conglomeration of unions that represent public employees as a bloc.  They have bought off the state legislature and are quite powerful.  I can't speak for the situation in Ohio, but I know what it is here.