
60 days in jail for not paying a $2.75 subway fare costs the city $22,000 - laurex
https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/status/1124319301694107650
======
uxp100
"I could demonstrate to you that every single bank robbery, that in every
single case practically, the cost of the police was more than the actual money
that the robbers took from the bank. Does that mean, 'Oh, you see, there's
really no economic interest involved, then. They're not protecting the banks.
The police are just doing this because they're on a power trip, or they're
macho, or they're control freaks, that's why they do it.' No, of course it's
an economic... of course they're defending the banks. Of course, because if
they didn't stop that bank robbery, regardless of the cost, this could
jeopardize the entire banking system." \-- Michael Parenti

Despite quoting that I'm not a hardcore leftist (anymore). But I think it's an
insightful quote, and does at least explain why certain crimes are handled the
way they are. That being said, this simply shouldn't be a criminal matter, and
should be handled more similarly to overdue parking meters, as some say in the
twitter comments.

(Also, that quote is out of context, it is itself serving as an example to
explain the (lack of) roi for american interventionism in South America. And
yes I used to listen to a lot of Choking Victim)

~~~
free652
But it didn't cost $22,000. If he didn't go to a jail would the city save
$22k?

The city lost $215,000,000 in revenue due to the fare evasion.

~~~
zaroth
And if they handed out $50 tickets for fare evasion, how much revenue would
that generate?

~~~
kristopolous
The person who can't afford $2 is now going to pay $50? From where? How?

~~~
failrate
Have them spend a shift cleaning garbage. Done.

~~~
geofft
I see we're leaning real hard into that "except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" thing.

~~~
failrate
Okay, good point. I was being far too glib.

------
NarcolepticFrog
This seems to be an unfair comparison to me. The penalty for not paying the
fare is not meant to somehow recuperate the lost cost - instead, the penalty
is there to incentivize people to pay the regular fare, rather than skipping
it. The real question to ask is: if the penalty were reduced, how much more
money would be lost due to the increased number of people not paying the
subway fare? I don't see a good way to answer this question, but it seems to
be the right comparison to me.

~~~
theptip
This is the right way to frame the question. It's pretty obvious that the
purpose of such disproportionate punishment is to discourage everybody from
breaking the rules; you can't just look at the individual that got caught.

If one is going to make an argument for any specific level of punishment for
this offense, it should be based on the expected total cost/benefit across the
entire population.

~~~
marcosdumay
> you can't just look at the individual that got caught

Of course you can. Legal systems must be proportional to everybody. The non-
existence of collective punishment is one of the pillars of Democracy.

That's not saying that the fine shouldn't be larger than the offense (of
course it should), but proportionality must be maintained at the personal
level for everybody.

------
misiti3780
I feel like this must be common in most cases, but I have only one data point
to back it up:

In 2014, I was working for a startup when I found out the founder had
embezzled/stolen our investor money, lied to creditors, stolen employee
salaries and W2 tax contributions, etc. and used the money to fund his big
apartment, private schools for his children, two full-time nannies, and a nice
BMW. After we found out we all resigned and the following Monday were sitting
in the DA's office (financial crimes). The DA decided to pick up the case
(fortunately, mostly because it was an absolute slam dunk after he confessed
to it all through email) and it took them literally 3 years of interviews,
research, etc to take the case to grand jury. Eventually, he plead guilty and
has to pay back roughly 650K to employees + investors, but NYC must have spent
well over 1MM to get that money back to us.

The only person that actually paid a lawyer in this case was the person who
plead guilty, and of course, the tax payers of NYC

------
brianpgordon
I don't know enough to take a position on this issue one way or another, but I
think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could
serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset
the cost.

~~~
jameskilton
This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people

1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think
about the consequences of their actions

And to a lesser extent, this ignores the subset of circumstances where people
forget to pay, actually do pay but the payment gets lost, or can't afford to
pay but need to get places.

This is why 3-strike rules are abject failures (life in prison for stealing a
slice of pizza?). Crime and punishment are enormously complicated and the
"obvious" solutions almost never actually work.

~~~
unqueued
If we just stopped enforcing the laws, the damage to our society would be
incalculable.

Is it worth it to prosecute petty thefts for less than $100? If not, then we
are giving the green light to that kind of crime. What incentive would you
have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the
law?

> This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1)
> Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about
> the consequences of their actions

I lived in New York City, and saw the people who tried that in Bushwick. I
actually agree that there are sadly many adults who completely dysfunctional.
But that does not mean that we should just abandon our laws. Is it not a much
bigger problem that we have people who simply can not help but break the law?

~~~
cortesoft
> What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the
> state won't enforce the law?

Small businesses exist even in places with no laws. Not saying it is a good
idea to not have laws, or not enforce them, but it isn't like EVERYTHING
ceases to work when laws aren't enforced.

I also don't think the effect is incalculable. We have lots of examples of
places where the government collapses and there is no longer any enforcement
of the law. We could certainly research the effect his has on the economy.

I am in no way arguing that we should abandon laws or stop enforcing petty
crime, just saying it isn't quite that simple.

~~~
jplayer01
> Small businesses exist even in places with no laws

Only because other power structures emerge with their own rules. I think I’ll
take laws over "lawlessness".

------
DoreenMichele
This looks like outrage fuel. I'm really not seeing meaningful solutions
proposed.

It's quite common in the US to do things like prosecute a notorious mafioso on
tax evasion because they can't prove the murders etc. that he's responsible
for. We don't know all the details of this specific case.

Yes, I get it, our entire 'justice' system is the worst element of a nation
with a long history of racism. I wish we would find real remedies.

I don't see this particular thing really adding substantive discussion and
furthering solutions.

Can anyone tell me what constructive purpose this serves?

Thanks.

~~~
dls2016
> I'm really not seeing meaningful solutions proposed.

Stop jailing people for nonviolent crimes. Give the turnstile jumper the same
treatment as the embezzler. Reduce the ridiculous US prison population!

------
smogcutter
Everyone's getting hung up on the 22k, but 60 days in jail for jumping a
turnstile is insane at any price.

~~~
ChrisGranger
I agree completely. If I were sentenced to even a _week_ in jail for jumping a
turnstile, I'd _still_ feel like they'd thrown the book at me.

------
cellis
That $22000 amounts to good wages for everyone involved, though. A lot of
people eating off the taxpayer for that one arrest, so less incentive to "fix"
the problem. It's only a problem to the taxpayer, and to the taxpayer, it's
_worth it_ to stick it to that guy who jumped the fare even if it costs tons
of money because it's unfair ( I paid, you didn't ). This is pretty
fundamental human psychology.

~~~
cardamomo
It most certainly does not amount to good wages for the person who is in jail
for not paying a $2.75 fare. Their 60 days in jail will have long-lasting
implications on their livelihood for the rest of their life. There are grave
"collateral consequences" we must consider. (Read
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512920](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512920)
for more on what this looks like.)

~~~
newfriend
Then they should have thought about that before they decided to commit a
crime. Life is about choices and consequences, and being overly permissive
with those who have no qualms about breaking the law leads to a sick society
where those who do actually follow the law are the ones who suffer.

~~~
cortesoft
We aren't talking about the individual person here, we are talking about the
macro effect of this type of enforcement. Obviously having the severe penalty
did not stop this particular person from committing the crime; the question
is, how many people DID it stop, and is the number of people it stopped worth
the cost?

No one is trying to defend the person, just trying to reason about what is
best for our society as a whole.

------
jrockway
We should just make the subway free. $2.75 doesn't come close to covering the
cost of the ride, so why add a regressive tax on what amounts to a basic need?

~~~
fredophile
I like this idea but think it has some practical problems. The money needs to
come from somewhere. Normally I'd say just move it to some other form of
existing taxation like income tax or property taxes. However, a reasonably
large portion of regular subway users are people that live in New Jersey but
commute to work in New York. You'd probably need to figure out a way to get
money from these people as well. Potentially this could be done with some
added fees on Ferries and other transit options between New Jersey and New
York but it would require some thought and planning.

~~~
scottlamb
> However, a reasonably large portion of regular subway users are people that
> live in New Jersey but commute to work in New York. You'd probably need to
> figure out a way to get money from these people as well.

One option would be to tax the employers:
[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11/06/mountain...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11/06/mountain-
view-head-tax-measure-p-google.html)

------
eastbayjake
It costs $500/night to jail someone in NYC? You could put them in a room at
the Four Seasons for less than that.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> It costs $500/night to jail someone in NYC? You could put them in a room at
> the Four Seasons for less than that.

But then there'd be no-one stopping them from leaving.

Also the minibar and room-service charges would make the Four Seasons stay far
more expensive. I'm sure the jail cost includes all meals.

~~~
everdev
Hyatt with an ankle bracelet?

/s

------
ram_rar
Can someone explain it to me, why in SF its treated as a minor ticket similar
to overdue parking meters as apposed to NYC where people are jailed for not
having a valid ticket ? Never thought NYC could be soo ridiculous.

~~~
free652
Because it's usually fined $100, that means something else is going on.

~~~
ram_rar
Could you elaborate ?

~~~
free652
I am going to guess that he's a repeated offender and didn't pay previous
tickets.

------
bargl
When I was in Prague my buddies and I decided to skip out on the fare. I was
very young, dumb, and wanted to look cool.

On the train the police walk around checking tickets rather than having a
ticketing booth etc. We obviously got caught.

We got fined what I think was $500 each and we deserved it. I should have just
paid the $2.75.

Edit: I think it was Prague it's been a really long time.

------
tus87
Well broken windows worked didn't it? NYC went from being the most dangerous
city in the US to one of the safest.

~~~
gabelevi
Crime in NYC did drop precipitously, but it's not clear that broken windows
policing was the cause. It's been studied and debated a lot, but as far as I
can tell there isn't a clear consensus. Here are some sources:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_York...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_York_City) * [https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/why-did-crime-...](https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/why-did-crime-fall-in-new-york-city/)

------
everdev
I'd imagine the cost of arrests and incarceration are sunk costs though.

It's not like we pay the police $2,000 for each arrest, or pay the prison
$500/night per inmate.

Does anyone know if these numbers were taken by adding up the costs of running
a prison and police department and dividing by the number of arrests and
inmates?

If so, it's a little disingenuous to make this argument.

Also, these cases are not about a 1:1 relationship of harm to society vs. cost
of justice. If you let the crimes go, you'll have more people doing it because
"everybody does it".

60 days in jail does seem pretty excessive though. If imagine tons of young
kids or people in a rush would make a silly mistake.

~~~
k_sh
> It's not like we pay the police $2,000 for each arrest

Not in a direct sense - but civil asset forfeiture and arrest/citation quotas
do incentivize individual officers to take actions that benefit their
department's budget and their annual review, respectively.

> It's not like we [...] pay the prison $500/night per inmate

In the case of private prisons (which house 8% of the US prison
population[0]), a per-prisoner stipend is the most popular[1] business model.

The government quite literally pays the prison company a fixed dollar amount
per inmate-night, which the company then turns a profit on.

[0]: [https://reason.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/comparing_correc...](https://reason.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/comparing_correctional_costs.pdf)

[1]:
[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062215/busin...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062215/business-
model-private-prisons.asp)

~~~
eridius
I don't understand why for-profit prisons even exist. It just sets up perverse
incentives and encourages unnecessary incarceration.

------
tananaev
> This doesn't include the cost of their arraignment, court staff, prosecutor
> or lawyer.

Then it does seem a bit excessive.

------
RenRav
$366 per day? Something isn't right when the original cost of the 'crime'
amounts to almost 11 minutes of jail time... and instead they end up serving
over two months. Is it always this imbalanced?

------
randyrand
If there was no punishment, how much would it cost the city in more skipped
fares?

That said, I don't think anyone actually goes to prison for a skipped fare.
There are better punishments out there.

------
onetimemanytime
Since she's debating economics: maybe jail for some scares others...enough to
make back the $22K spent for them?

------
mnm1
Good. Jail for such an infraction is fucking absurd. The city should change
its stupid laws. I wish it cost more, really. This is what the city government
wishes to use its monopoly on violence on? Say the turnstile hopper doesn't
stop then gets into a chase that ends up with either him or the cop dead.
Would that be worth it? Would the city reconsider its dumbass laws then? A
simple fine would be plenty.

------
imjustsaying
$500*60 days +$2k =$32k

~~~
DoreenMichele
The series of tweets addresses that. They are calculating it based on serving
40 days because that's how much of the sentence you will probably serve.

~~~
imjustsaying
thanks.

------
RickJWagner
They should just charge a $50 fine on the spot, or take a shoe.*

* Nobody wants to lose a shoe, plus it stimulates the local economy (at least the shoe stores.)

------
nipponese
Is it moral and right to post these divisive headlines without even the basic
context of line item cost breakdown?

------
Tsubasachan
Putting someone in jail for breaking the law isn't about costs. Besides before
you know it nobody pays for their ticket and then what? This is a nice
deterrent for any other sad sack who thinks he is above the rules.

~~~
bargl
Why not fine them instead?

Before you say, not everyone can afford XYZ fine. I would fully support a
income based proportional fine system in the US.

What i Don't support is putting someone in jail because they can't afford a
lawyer.

~~~
aeternus
What do you do about people with no money?

With BART especially, you can watch the same person that jumped the gate light
up a meth pipe in the back of the train car.

BART police will kick them off the train if they get caught but can't really
do much else since the city doesn't really prosecute for drug offenses. If you
look at the arrest records, you see the same people arrested day after day.
They don't have any money.

I'd like to see a program that gives the option of jail or rehab+community
service.

~~~
bargl
I like this suggestion as well. People without money can instead do community
service instead.

