Like a regressive sales tax, the total fees/fines for a moving violation penalize the poor to a much greater degree than they do the wealthy.

In California, the minimum wage is currently $9 an hour, or $360 a week, if an employee is fortunate enough to work 40 hours. (That $360 is the gross amount. Once FICA taxes are taken out the net is closer to $332.)

Our members of Congress gross $174,000 annually, or $3,346 a week. According to Barack Obama's 2011 income tax return, his gross annual income was $845,000, or $16,250 a week.

In California, if any one of these three individuals is driving 70 mph in a 65-mph zone (and who hasn't?), and is ticketed for this illegal activity, the cost of that ticket will start at $35. (For the sake of this example, let's pretend that President Obama would drive his own car.) Like most states, California adds on fees and fines, and brings the total tab to $234.

To our minimum wage employee, who by the way, is a single mother of two, the $234 represents 65 percent of her gross weekly wage and quite possibly half of her monthly food budget. To a congressional rep, it is percent of his or her weekly gross, and perhaps dinner with the spouse. I don't know what President Obama would spend $234 on, but it only represents 1.8 percent of his weekly gross income.

Traffic tickets are meant to be punitive; they are meant to penalize the driver and teach a lesson that we hope will not be quickly forgotten. But how long will a congressional rep, or a millionaire, remember the cost of a single dinner?

And should our single, minimum-wage-earning, mom be forced to choose between feeding her children or paying a fine? How punitive do we need to be in order to remind drivers that safety lies in following the rules of the road?

Why not use income-based fines, somewhat like they do in Finland, without the complexity of their system, which requires immediate access to the Finnish government's income tax database?

Peg the total fees and fines to no more than 40 percent of the gross weekly salary of a minimum wage employee. But then apply the same percentage to everyone's gross income. If an illegal lane change is worth a 20-percent fine—then a congressional rep should pay $670, President Obama, $3250, and the mom would owe $72. A full-time student, or others lacking an income, could do community service (perhaps roadside clean-up) instead. Income could be verified at the time of the fine payment with a copy of the prior year's tax return with all but the name, address, and gross salary blacked out.

Progressive fines have never been widely debated in the United States, and have only been tried in a couple of places, but in an era of growing inequality, the time might be right to take a serious look at the issue.

In California today, as in most states, should a person be unable or unwilling, to pay his or her traffic fine, the court can asses an additional penalty and turn it over to a collection agency. If that doesn't work, the driver's license can be suspended. And finally, a warrant for arrest can be issued and the driver can be jailed. And it is in the local jails in California that the disparity of treatment between the rich and the poor is jaw-dropping.

In 2010, Michael Keating got drunk and drove his Toyota Celica into a tree, injuring one passenger and killing the other. He pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence, and driving with a blood-alcohol content of .08 percent or more.

His family has paid $72,000 for him to enjoy what for jails would be considered luxury accommodations, as he served two years for the DUI that killed a passenger in his car. But he is not the only one to enjoy the Seal Beach upgrades illustrated in this video:



... he grew a beard long enough to be braided. “I wanted the appearance of being the crazy guy,” he said. “You don’t mess with the crazy guy.”

Seal Beach and several other Southern California cities—including Anaheim, Arcadia, Burbank, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Pasadena, Santa Ana and Torrance - allow inmates to avoid other overcrowded and potentially more dangerous jails by renting the upgraded cells for a daily fee.

In an interview after his release, Keating said that:According to a recent NBC4 News report The movement to provide five-star jail cells has flourished in California as cities find ways to enhance their revenue stream. Beverly Hills Arcadia , and Fremont all have websites advertising the availability of upgraded accommodations for a price. Those fees can be as low as $70 a day or up to a daily charge of $155, depending upon the jail. The prisoners who can afford the price tag are often allowed to leave the jail during the day to go to work, and have access to satellite televisions, DVDs, computers, kitchen facilities, and game tables. Some are allowed to bring with them their watches, clothes, books, and games. These upgrades are usually reserved for non-violent and non-drug related convicts, often DUI offenders. But they all must be able to pay for the privilege.

The Orange County Register reported that since 2010, the following cities have made money by offering special cells for the well-off:



Fullerton: $223,541

Huntington Beach: $669,000

Anaheim: $1,276,905

There is only one problem. Jails are not profit centers. No more than are wars. They are a necessary evil, but they are not something that should enrich anyone. Not even the taxpayer. Once cities learn to rely on this as a source of income, we can almost count on the need for them to criminalize more behavior to fill these cells and keep the dollars rolling in.

Nor should separate jails be set up for those who can afford them. Separate is not equal. And equal justice under the law is what our system is supposed to be all about.

The fact is, all jail cells should be like those in the Seal Beach facility—small, clean, and safe. And more importantly, run with respect for those incarcerated and the belief that they can return to society and assume full responsibilities once their sentences have been completed. Sentences for nonviolent and non-serious drug and property crimes should be reduced and those offenders who require incarceration should be placed in smaller facilities near their homes and families.

On November 4, 2014, Californians voted to do just that. The new law requires misdemeanor instead of felony sentences for certain nonviolent and non-serious drug and property offenses. As a result, many offenders will be held in county/municipal jails instead of state prisons.

According to California's legislative analyst's analysis of the ballot measure's impact:



County Jail and Community Supervision. The proposed reduction in penalties would have various effects on the number of individuals in county jails. Most significantly, the measure would reduce the jail population as most offenders whose sentence currently includes a jail term would stay in jail for a shorter time period. In addition, some offenders currently serving sentences in jail for certain felonies could be eligible for release. These reductions would be slightly offset by an increase in the jail population as offenders who would otherwise have been sentenced to state prison would now be placed in jail. On balance, we estimate that the total number of statewide county jail beds freed up by these changes could reach into the low tens of thousands annually within a few years.

...

Summary of County Fiscal Effects. We estimate that the effects described above could result in net criminal justice system savings to the counties of several hundred million dollars annually, primarily from freeing jail capacity.

"It’s good people who made a mistake, made a bad choice — and they have to pay the consequences," Detective Laura Lomeli said. But, she added, "bottom line—if you don't have the money, you’re not going to be able to stay."

As the pay-to-stay programs are currently administered, many of them do not accept women. Nor do they accept anyone whose offense is drug-related. And since we know that the War on Drugs was aimed at black communities, that pretty much leaves these facilities to well-off white men. I can hear your gasp of surprise.