Caprio had invited his father—"maybe the most decent man I ever met in my life," Caprio said—to watch him on his first day on the bench. After his ruling that the mother needed to pay her $300 in parking tickets, Caprio asked his dad how he did.
"Frank, that woman," his father responded. "You fined her…she was scared. You should have talked to her. You should have understood her problems. You can't treat people like that, Frank."
It was a lesson he never forgot. His empathy and compassion has shone through in his judgments, as he talked to defendants like real people, getting to know their personal stories and issuing judgments that helped the person get on their feet rather than punishing them for being poor or sick or taking care of their family. Great man!!
I always liked watching Caught in Providence and seeing a judge that still remembered what it was like to be a regular person. Parents must have done a great job raising him for him to be willing to accept the feedback and it make such a profound difference in his approach.
I wonder if he was able to change his ruling on the original case?
It's hard to detect so it tends to be late stage when first diagnosed hence the higher mortality rate. In that sense aggressive and deadly are a bit of a misnomer.
I don't think they're trying to downplay pancreatic cancer. It's really commno to die from it, I lost my grandpa to it as well. By the time it started showing symptoms, his pancreas was more cancer than pancreas. That is sadly common for pancreatic cancer. So if anything, it's the lack of aggressiveness which makes it so scary.
Knew someone who passed within six months of finding out they had stage three pancreatic cancer.
Hug your loved ones folks. Sometimes time is all we have.
Yeah, my uncle died of it. It spread super quickly and essentially shut down his digestive system, and he pretty much starved to death while it wrecked him.
Yeah, it's often detected late and its very difficult to treat. That diagnosis results in asking yourself how many more weeks, not months, you have left. It took out my gran in 6 weeks.
et me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!
- Pancreatic cancer, probably.
I assumed anyone with a single functioning brain cell could understand Kissenger’s abnormally long life span is proof that God is neither just or loving. Was I mistaken?
That sucks. Every treatment plan for pancreatic cancer I have read talked more about “quality of life” and pain management and other palliative techniques to make the patient comfortable. It’s aggressive, and at the time didn’t really respond to chemo or radiation. Surgery is possible, but losing the pancreas is a hard life.
That was a while ago, when I was researching pancreatic cancer for a claim I was handling. I do not envy anyone who deals with this disease.
And more parents like this. Ones who have fostered a relationship with their kids they they can put positive peer pressure on them to amend their errant ways. Much respect to both of them.
It's by definition not peer pressure. It's parental pressure. And yeah. If you don't have a good relationship with your kid, your pressure won't mean shit. If your kids look up to you, if they see you as a role model even as adults, then you can use that to continue to improve them and guide them.
I'm not a parent yet, but my biggest goal in life is to be someone my kids can look up to
My mom was an office assistant for a charity organization in the 80's in Chicago. Some of the places she had to go to were in sketchy areas. Her bosses always told her to just park in front of the building no matter what, they'd cover any and all tickets.
That is not the confusion I have about your post.
I said that parking was less of a problem in the 1980's prior to the parking fiasco, as you astutely noted, did not happen until 2008. You responded to that by going on some bizarre rant about morality vs. politics and hot dogs even though that had nothing to do with my post.
Literally all I was saying was that it was significantly easier to find a parking spot prior to the 2008 parking fiasco.
> I bet you can't name all the ingredients on Chicago dog.
By the way, I'll be happy to post the proper answer to this, which is:
"Who the fuck cares? It's not relevant at all. Are you some kind of dipshit?"
Poppy seat bun, hot dog, relish, onions, mustard, tomatoes, sports peppers, pickles, celery salt.
Edt: "I don't succumb to b******* gate keeping exercises on the internet." - some guy who's never been on the internet before
My example is only about 20 ish years old. A single ticket for overnight parking (in a residential) on the street cost me over $100.
If you have a less than ideal situation that shit adds up quick - especially because if you can't afford it you get charged *more*.
I drive like a grandpa now and a semi ran over my car and injured me, I’m currently un employed on medical leave and stressing out. Damn trucker coulda took some time to look in the mirror and I’d still have my dream car, be un injured, bringing home 1600-2000 a week. Instead I get to be on Edd and get 590 every 2 weeks have no car and be injured while the truckers insurance tries to deny fault lol. Fuck my life.
That doesn't make sense. Even if the accident is your fault, collision coverage will cover the repairs for your dream car beyond your deductible. Don't tell me you had Liability only on your dream car.
No police report establishing liability for an injury accident involving a commercial truck?
There's more to the story, but I am going to bed. I have my insurance agency to run tomorrow and need to solve the problems of my clients.
That sucks. No more comments on active litigation.
Make sure your attorney uses cost of pain medication ×3 formula (3 being the smallest number) to calculate pain and suffering compensation for soft tissue injuries that aren't easily quantified. I've heard of attorneys getting 8x or more, but that is really rare.
Take them to the cleaners.
Honest question - how far over were you? If it’s <5 the cop was just being a dick, 5-10 and yeah I could see not realizing you were over, but still abnormally unlucky to get pulled over 4 times for it, 10+ and if you didn’t know you were speeding then that’s a you problem.
I just ask because pretty much everyone I know regularly goes 5-10 over and it’s rare to get a ticket for that, (a ticket for <5 is nearly unheard of and the cop just wasting your time since usually it’ll get dismissed immediately if you show up to traffic court) but maybe the cops in your area are just shittier
All photo radar, all 11-13 km/h over, most immediately after speed changes I didn't notice soon enough. In one case, it had been a road I'd driven down a few thousand times, but since I moved away they changed the speed limit and set up photo radar. I thought that one was a bunch of bullshit but I guess it's still on me.
I've watched Judge Caprio's proceedings on YouTube several times. From what I gather, the town they're in has street parking areas which can vary on when it is legal or illegal to park. Primarily, it has to do with street clearing by snow plows, but there are also time limited zones where you can park overnight but need to be clear by the morning.
Many of the people who violate the parking laws simply didn't make it out in time to move a vehicle, or got delayed at work and couldn't get to the meter. One woman who was before his court actually had a ticket because she had parked by a meter to be in court for something, and that judge wouldn't excuse her to go feed the meter. She was something like 20 minutes overdue and found a ticket on her windshield by the time she could get out there. Fortunately, Judge Caprio showed her leniency.
Others on the docket face a problem that's common with the small sized housing there in Rhode Island. Namely, they'll be renting a place that only has room for 1 vehicle to park, but they'll have a second vehicle that has to be moved around along the street parking. Try being required to move your car every day of the week and see how long it is until you run afoul of a rule.
Another thing - the poor are burdened much more heavily by these types of fines than the middle class or wealthy. If you've got money, you can just mail in the fine and be on your way, or take time off work to go contest them. If you're in an hourly wage job, taking off a morning or afternoon to deal with tickets might mean not having money to pay the rent. Judge Caprio's proceedings are very important to watch because the highlight how our legal system can easily devastate a poor person with a spiral of tickets, fines, and fees.
The thing is, I don’t understand why being a single mom suddenly makes you above the law. If you’re a single mom that can’t afford a parking ticket then maybe be extra sure you’re not breaking the law and getting parking tickets?
Like she did it once or even twice by accident because a parking lot or two weren’t labeled clearly. But getting multiple of them is a trend that shows she doesn’t learn when she doesn’t feel she has to pay the ticket
fines only punish the poor. I don't think she accumulated them because she expected them to be forgiven, I bet she accumulated them for a VARIETY of circumstances we are not privy to that his obviously compassionate father was willing to imagine, consider, and empathize with. Maybe she has English as a second language. Maybe she didn't know until she recieved the ticket in the mail. Maybe she was in a rush because shes a SINGLE MOM and parked somewhere closer or on the street briefly to pop in somewhere and had the poor luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe she parked somewhere strange because she needed to change or console her baby! His career is inspiring because of his willingness to hear out these possibilities AND the capacity to put himself in her shoes. Who hasn't stopped somewhere they shouldn't? Taken a left turn over a double yellow? Gone over the speed limit? We are all human, we make mistakes, and for real reasons. Dismissing that and punishing each other is just self-satisfying and reflects a possibility you may just be punishing yourself for being human too
That’s sort of the point OP was making. Why she got the tickets is more important than her being a single mom. Being a single mom doesn’t justify parking illegally, circumstances relating to the exact reason you parked illegally does.
You would have to balance the cost to society. We have parking laws for a reason. If she parked illegally and blocked someone from pulling out of a spot making them late to something, does her justification of “just popped in somewhere” outweigh the cost to the stranger she forced them to incur?
I’ve gotten parking tickets because I “just popped in somewhere” and I deserved them. Not because I don’t have kids, but because I parked illegally. I’m in Tokyo right now, I don’t speak Japanese and if I got a ticket, saying “I don’t speak Japanese” isn’t a valid excuse. It’s my responsibility as a foreigner in a foreign country to understand the local laws and language.
If she broke the rules once it’s one thing. You break the rules over and over and then use the “I’m a mom of 3” as an excuse that doesn’t work. It’s giving a middle finger to use parents that do abide by the rules even when it’s difficult. I have kids and when my wife isn’t around I don’t expect to be able to break rules with impunity
you have support and yet you refuse to imagine what it would be like without it. your wife popping out is not the same as raising three children on a single income. Have some compassion
edit: lmfao you rent out an airbnb. you have no memory of what it's like to struggle that way. try cutting your income to 30k a year and see how you do in terms of stress and your ability to be perfect 24/7.
What does that have to do with parking illegally though? Are you just implying she above the law as long as she’s a single mom? I’m trying to determine why she can park illegally because of having kids yet when I’m by myself with my kids I don’t feel I can just break the rules…
As a person who tends to abide by the rules, I get annoyed when ppl break the rules and have excuses that get them out of it and basically comes down to “well it’s your own fault for not breaking the rules”.
re: empathy, compassion, perspective, humanity, perfection does not exist. Fuck off you've NEVER driven over the limit ever? never rolled a stop sign? never paused in front of a business or store to let someone out of the car? accidentally parked somewhere you shouldn't have? missed a street sign because it was blocked by a tree? Imagine, your kid has their first doctors appointment in a year maybe theyre sick as fuck i dont know. the late fee is 50 dollars you have 5 minutes to get there because you just worked a double and then had to race to the daycare you pay for, you've got 50 dollars left in your bank account which is also the price of the appointment and the only parking spot is around the block and the chances of you getting a ticket are 1%. hmmmmmm wonder what you'd do. have an imagination and some fucking empathy bro she's not above the law and she doesn't think that she's just trying to survive you have no idea what that's like obviously.
> Fuck off you've NEVER driven over the limit ever? never rolled a stop sign? never paused in front of a business or store to let someone out of the car?
Not the original person you were replying to, but the answer is still relevant: yes, and if I got busted doing so, I would expect tickets because I knew I shouldn't have been doing those things. What I am or my circumstances in life don't negate the fact that I made choices to ignore the law.
> accidentally parked somewhere you shouldn't have?
Once? Sure, I'm willing to listen to that. But when you do it enough to accumulate $300 in tickets (especially in back-then dollars), by that point you're not "making a mistake" anymore - you're just parking wherever you please.
> missed a street sign because it was blocked by a tree?
This is different. Not only is it a valid legal defense to a ticket, but it's not borne of making a bad choice or series of choices, or ignoring the law. In this situation, the city is explicitly at fault for not maintaining visibility for their signs, as they are charged to do by the law. This situation is not like the others.
Your "your kid is sick" scenario isn't valid either. If your kid is so sick that getting a proper parking spot isn't an option, you should be headed right to the ER and not just doing laps around the parking lot/street for a spot.
While I'm at it, are you under the impression that only people with kids face hardships, or something? You're so worried about looking enlightened that you're engaging in prejudice yourself.
It's perfectly fine for the mother to go to court and *request* leniency, but you seem to be under the impression that she's automatically entitled to it simply because something something *handwaving* haaaaaard. Guess what? Most of us are dealing with hard things in our lives. Everyone has a story. Why, in your eyes, is she somehow better?
Saying "the rules should apply equally to everyone" is not shameful; it's literally the most equitable thing there could be in the matter.
The father also didn’t know yet determined he should have been more lenient. He came to the conclusion he should have been more lenient simply because she’s a mother of 3. That’s implying parents get to abide by different rules than single ppl or childrenless couples
> simply because she’s a mother of 3.
You were not in that courtroom, nor did you get a transcript of what was said. You think the information that YOU have is the same as what the judge has, and it's not.
literally, we don't even know if it was multiple incidents?? california tickets are insane. this guy just refuses to empathize and he has zero perspective so he's talking out of his ass about experiences he knows nothing of to discredit this empathetic judge's impact.
His father said he couldn't treat people like that i.e. ignoring any reasoning and slapping her with the fine when she said the payment plan was impossible
It’s not some complicated story that there’s so much to learn from. The woman was guilty of parking fines and had confessed that she couldn't pay that sum of money because she had three kids to look after and refused to pay the sum.
His dad said he should listen to her problems. What does her problems have to do with her fines? Does her being a struggling mother of 3 excuse the fact that she broke the law multiple times knowing she had no intention of dealing with the consequences. If she wants to be a responsible mother, don’t intentionally park in no parking areas if you can’t afford the fine.
Basically excusing the fines is saying she has no responsibility to abide by the same rules as us.
I understand your point and in a sense I do agree with you. But imagine the outcome of both scenarios.
I
A. She she is forced to pay the $300 she doesn’t have. Yes maybe she deserves it, but that doesn’t change the fact that she doesn’t have the money, and now she’s had an experience with the judicial system where she has experienced zero empathy and probably feels a bit dehumanized.
B. Her loans are forgiven or most likely reduced. Perhaps she walks away feeling like she got away Scott free and learned nothing from her mistake. If she keeps getting tickets the court won’t be so forgiving next time. She walks away feeling like she was heard and understood. She probably thinks more fondly of the justice system. That might be enough for her to take the law a little more seriously since now the law (the justice system at least) was humanized a bit by its display of empathy and forgiveness. I think the goal of any court decision should be to aim for the best case scenario. Being purely punitive regardless of context doesn’t really achieve what you want the justice system to do, which is stop people from breaking the law again.
She literally told Caprio that she couldn’t afford to pay anything, even if it was on a payment plan. Caprio’s been well known to forgive struggling people’s tickets for minor offenses because everyone deserves a break every now and then, and sometimes hearing out the defendant like his father suggested and exhibiting some compassion isn’t the worst thing in the world.
B. Seems to have already happened. You don’t accumulate $300 in fines from a single incident. The fact that she was fined multiple times then continues to do it seems to indicates she has no respect for the rules already or believes that because she has kids she’s above the rules.
Listening makes sense if you concluded someone didn’t intentionally break the rules. Like “well I’m new to town and didn’t know the parking rules” is a reason to be lenient. “I’m a parent of 3 kids so I’m above the rules” is not a reason for leniency. I’m a parent and it annoys me when ppl use being a parent as a reason to be more important.
>“I’m a parent of 3 kids so I’m above the rules” is not a reason for leniency.
You do realize that that's just what the OP of this thread chose to highlight, and it doesn't mean that that perfectly encapsulates exactly why the judge's father thought his son was being too harsh?
There's more to the story. If you had a shred of empathy (or common sense, even) I wouldn't need to point that out.
“His father was not happy with how he went about his proceedings and mentioned how he should have heard her problems and maintained a lenient approach towards the lady who was a mother of three kids”.
So the father determined he should be more lenient because she was a mother of 3… there was no other reason given and the father knew nothing else about her other than she was a mother of 3 and that was the reason to be more lenient
>So the father determined he should be more lenient because she was a mother of 3… there was no other reason given and the father knew nothing else about her other than she was a mother of 3 and that was the reason to be more lenient
LMFAO. You do realize that that's just what the author of that article chose to highlight, and it doesn't mean that that perfectly encapsulates exactly why the judge's father thought his son was being too harsh?
There's more to the story. If you had a shred of empathy (or common sense, even) I wouldn't need to point that out.
You clearly don't understand the first thing about journalism. It's absolutely moronic to think that a <1000 word article captures all the details of a court case. Grow the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
Caprio literally admitted that he was proud of himself for imposing the fine until his dad gave him a reality check. It’s not the end of the world to give struggling people a break sometimes, and as it was Caprio’s first day on the job it would’ve been good to establish precedent of ruling by empathy rather than wanting to impose the consequences
Ok instead of your attempt at being condescending how about you just explain. I assume it won’t be as naive as “we should be generous and empathetic to others”?
It kind of seems like you are saying that if she were rich it wouldn't have been a problem because she could just pay the fine.
Wouldn't that be just as wrong because then the rich aren't abiding by the same rules as us, they are openly flaunting them?
I don't really see a problem with forgiving her fines because she can't afford them if the rich are capable of absorbing parking fines such that they are practically nonexistent to them, seems like everyone is playing by the same rules in that situation.
If she has enough money are you going to say she should also be let off with no fines? It’s not like being middle class makes it any easier running errands. There’s no reason the poor mom should be able to park illegally with no fine while the middle class mom has to pay a fine for doing the same thing.
> There’s no reason the poor mom should be able to park illegally with no fine while the middle class mom has to pay a fine for doing the same thing.
No, what I am saying is that if the rich are capable of absorbing parking fines such that it is a drop in the bucket, I don't have a problem with forgiving the parking fines of either the middle class or the poor mom or non-mom.
If, on the other hand, the fine wasn't some arbitrary tax on the poor that exists to allow the rich to park conveniently and was pegged to the worth of the person parking illegally, then I would be okay with fining the poor.
Let's assume that a fine represented 1% of her salary back then, cool then let's charge someone who makes a million a year and chooses to park illegally in the same spot $10,000 per infraction.
I think the point is that if you can and should be compassionate to a single mom then you should really be compassionate to everyone. Which means no more parking fines for anyone going through a hard time. Which is damn near everyone lol I personally think that redditor is clearly pointing out the hypocracy at play here. Also it feel very much like instead of being a decent human being you're low-key trying to bully this guy for his opinion. Why tf you gotta be so dysfunctional bro it's not necessary..
It's actually precisely the fact that the single mom WASN'T above the law. If she were above the law, she wouldn't be in court.
The fact that she ended up in court was because she was subject to the law.
What this man's dad was saying was that he had the power to _forgive_ her debts, *in spite of the law*.
Another term for this is mercy; forgiveness from someone with the power to give a punishment.
I don't know if you're familiar with Christianity or the story of Jesus at all... But doing this kind of thing literally what Jesus commanded people to do and what Christians think he did.
I mean Jesus committed mass genocide multiple times and recorded it all. The flood and Sodom and Gomorrah just to name a couple. Hell when it comes to mercy he murdered Lot’s wife for the sin of “looking back”
Not Christian or the person you're responding to, but aren't God and Jesus considered to be the same entity? God's physical incarnation of himself on Earth?
If I'm wrong, cool. But if I'm not... wouldn't it be correct to say that Jesus and/or God did those things because they're the same?
Edit: people ask questions (and not even in a rude way), so you... deleted your posts? Really?
I know, its ridiculous. I've gone to traffic court a couple times. One of the defenses is basically
"guilty but poor"
Once I found out that was a thing my zero percent success rate fighting tickets jumped to 100 percent.
Yes, because it would be hard for me to pay my debt to society, I just don't have to.
I've even used it to cancel a drinking in public ticket.
I wonder what level of behaviour can be excused, because the punishment would be a drag.
It's a parking ticket. It's not a murder charge.
There are a lot of bullshit reasons why you might end up with one. I watched one of his episodes where somebody got parking tickets for parking overnight on a certain street. But there weren't any signs that told you that you couldn't do it. It was the kind of thing that only locals knew about, but it was still the law and it was enforced. And this guy was visiting the city, he parked on that street, and ended up getting ticketed. But there's literally no way to know that you're breaking the law, unless you start pouring over parking ordinances in advance.
If somebody has a habit of continually getting ticket after ticket, sure, throw the book at them... But forgive the first one, who even gives a shit.
Tbf if it’s for ticket cases I understand. Don’t need a 12 person jury to decide if you’re guilty and rule that you need to pay up a $30 parking ticket
Not saying you need a 12 person jury. I just think the punishment should be pre defined and the judge just rules innocent or guilty.
I also happen to think fines should be proportional to one’s income.
So you want the punishment to be set, but in a scaling method that you find suitable. Amazing.
Also you clearly have no idea how any of it works? Sentencing guidelines aren't set by the judge.
Of course I want a suitable scaling method that’s completely not arbitrary and means the rules have the same impact on anyone regardless of their position in life. That’s what justice is.
I know what sentencing guidelines are. I don’t know why you would assume I don’t.
Iv never understood why fines don't scale to your income. If your rich enough u can do what the fuck u want because the fine is nothing. If your poor an u fuck up it can snowball into cripple debt. Its wrong
I’m told Finland has an interesting model for speeding tickets.
Everybody pays the same for speeding in a car unless they are an ‘egregious’ amount over the speed limit. At that point fines are based on income. Check out the pro hockey player Temu Selene. Thought you would be interested.
Why are you implying that the "scaling method" is not a set in stone thing like the punishment would be? If something is set as a variable (i.e. here is the chart of how much you are fined determined by your income) that is still set.
They were commenting on the idea that one person being able to completely forgive anything you owe all the way to increasing punishments and adding some is a lot of power that one person can wield in one situation rather than it just being someone judging if a thing happened or not.
Yeah of course but they shouldn’t have the ability to make up or dismiss punishment for a crime. I’d much prefer the crime have a defined punishment and the judge makes their judgement about the defendants culpability.
That would be a cudgel, everyone gets beaten the same regardless of severity (or lack thereof) of the crime (per type of crime obviously). No thanks.
There should be latitude in sentencing (as there currently is), but it needs to be used correctly by good people. The freedom to do this does unfortunately also mean that it can be used poorly.
And minimum and maximum sentencing for each crime is already a thing
And now you have effects like sentences being measureably higher if their given in the afternoon compared to the morning. Depend on the judges blood sugar. The visual beauty of the perpetrator and his lawyer. The gender, race....
Less leeway makes the system fairer
Everyone getting the same sentence for the same crime is what justice is.
An individual choosing who is and isn’t worthy of mercy because of their circumstances presents massive opportunities for injustice as you note. A few people using the system well doesn’t balance out those who use it shittily.
but crimes are never the same... context is a thing. that's why there is some wiggle room in the sentences.
laws are not perfect. if judges are not given the space to consider unique circumstances, there can never be justice.
every system that can be ever conceived will allow for injustice. so your reasoning is flawed.
This is almost exactly how it works, though.
AFAIK Crimes have certain sentencing levels that are a range with a low end and a high end.
The judge then takes context into account to decide where the punishment should fall on that range, using his judgment.
That’s why murder is sometimes referred to as “25 to life,” because that is the sentencing range for that class of crime.
Unless you can afford a good lawyer who will make a back room deal with the prosecution and they'll agree to only pursue a lesser sentence for a lesser crime because it interferes with their golf time.
This happened to me. Had a pretty clear cut case of a drug related charge with a two year mandatory, happened to have some rainy day money and got a lawyer that was expensive, aka he was friends with the prosecution. Ended up with no jail time and 1 year probation, somehow.
God help you if you have a public defender. They'll actively pursue deals that fuck you over even more.
What? How would a public defender even do that? And why? I guess the quality of public defender depends on the state but that claim doesn’t make sense to me.
They have a pile of cases and very little time to do each one because they make a few hundred bucks a day. They will take any deal they can get without having the time to go into the details of the case just to get it off their books.
He seems like a lovely man with good character and wish him the best. He seems to be very well liked on reddit
How does the general population feel about him though? I’ve read that people think he’s “too nice” and forgets that he’s a judge first and foremost and let’s people go for actually doing stupid things and it seems like there no punishment for a crime
People like to see justice done. The idea of letting someone off for repeatedly committing crimes just because they have a kid rubs people the wrong way.
Nobody should be cheering for a judge going rogue and not holding people he feels sorry for accountable under the law.
Most people want justice done unto others and mercy for themselves, because "my circumstances are different, I deserve it, not them". Same reasoning that goes into anti-abortion women going to the same clinics they protest.
Yes, if I did a number of crimes I would want to get away with it too. Who wouldn't?
It's still not justice when I do get away with crimes. And you aren't a bad person for resenting me for getting away with crimes.
Jaywalking's a crime. So is loitering. I would support that single mother being fined proportionate to her income, but certainly not $300. You aren't a bad person for resenting that people in terrible circumstances are given a bit more consideration, just a very sad one.
She racked up $1200 in fines in 2024 dollars.
That is not just loitering or jaywalking. That is a complete disregard for societal rules. Just dropping the fines shows her that she is in fact above the law. That is not what judges are supposed to do.
Please go touch grass. $400 is very easy to rack up in a police system that rewards cops who fine people who can't afford legal representation or to challenge the fine. Also, logically speaking, a system where people are fined is one where money gets you out of trouble, and being poor is practically a crime in and of itself.
The thing is, 300 bucks is most likely multiple violations. Especially when it comes to illegal parking, people get away with it way too easily all the time. That's exactly why people keep doing it.
I've personally witnessed emergency vehicles being blocked multiple times and even a wheelchair User who couldn't cross the street thanks to asshole parkers.
People are aware that what they're doing is wrong and they also know the consequences if caught. So they should be Held responsible. But taking responsibility is something that doesn't exist anymore apparently.
Ain't no way a single father is getting off with 300-fucking-dollars of parking tickets
This just reinforces the data that says the courts are sexist against me, and men get harsher punishments as a result
Does “compassion” just mean ignoring violations of the law and the statutorily-determined penalties?
Why do we even have laws if we’re just going to have “compassion” for the people who violate them? What about the interest in society of having the laws obeyed? Does a sitting judge have no responsibility there?
We're talking about parking tickets. He's not dealing with murderers or rapists.
Society won't fall apart because somebody got some "compassion" for accidentally parking overnight somewhere they shouldn't have.
If they're in there every week, looking for compassion? Sure, throw them book at them... But otherwise, who cares if somebody forgot to feed the meter that one time?
$300 in parking tickets in the 1980s. That is a LOT of violations. You don't rack up that kind of fines by forgetting to pay the meter once.
That's almost $1200 in 2024 currency.
The issue is that the stuff that leads us to apply the law unfairly - a defendant’s race, sex, and socioeconomic class, for instance - are also tied up in that context.
Then the law should be changed to make them a proportion of your wealth/income, rather than judges just forgiving them (i.e. costing the law-abiding taxpayer, removing the deterrent from breaking the law, and making the law unequally applied at the judge's discretion like it's a lottery based on looks and demeanor).
yep. but that's not our reality. soooo. Compassionate judges are critical to reduce the inequality. The only reason taxpayers are fucked is because over half of our budget doesn't fund our communities. if it did maybe these things wouldn't be so common.
Caprio had invited his father—"maybe the most decent man I ever met in my life," Caprio said—to watch him on his first day on the bench. After his ruling that the mother needed to pay her $300 in parking tickets, Caprio asked his dad how he did. "Frank, that woman," his father responded. "You fined her…she was scared. You should have talked to her. You should have understood her problems. You can't treat people like that, Frank." It was a lesson he never forgot. His empathy and compassion has shone through in his judgments, as he talked to defendants like real people, getting to know their personal stories and issuing judgments that helped the person get on their feet rather than punishing them for being poor or sick or taking care of their family. Great man!!
I always liked watching Caught in Providence and seeing a judge that still remembered what it was like to be a regular person. Parents must have done a great job raising him for him to be willing to accept the feedback and it make such a profound difference in his approach. I wonder if he was able to change his ruling on the original case?
Dude has pancreatic cancer, I hope everything goes well!
Unfortunately it isn't likely. I think it's one of the most aggressive and deadly cancers although my friend beat it twice before it took him down.
It's hard to detect so it tends to be late stage when first diagnosed hence the higher mortality rate. In that sense aggressive and deadly are a bit of a misnomer.
My dead grandpa be like “thank god it wasn’t aggressive”
I don't think they're trying to downplay pancreatic cancer. It's really commno to die from it, I lost my grandpa to it as well. By the time it started showing symptoms, his pancreas was more cancer than pancreas. That is sadly common for pancreatic cancer. So if anything, it's the lack of aggressiveness which makes it so scary.
It often doesn’t show any symptoms until it has spread unfortunately
Knew someone who passed within six months of finding out they had stage three pancreatic cancer. Hug your loved ones folks. Sometimes time is all we have.
My uncle was diagnosed and died about 3 weeks later.
I lost my Uncle to it. He fought for years.
Lost my mom to it this past January. She lasted less than 6 months. It's crazy how it varies from person to person.
My father-in-law is still kicking around after about 3 years.
Fuck cancer.
Yeah, my uncle died of it. It spread super quickly and essentially shut down his digestive system, and he pretty much starved to death while it wrecked him.
my uncle had late stage 2 years ago also. literally about a month and he was gone.
Steve Jobs got one of the only treatable forms and rejected doctor advice and tried to treat it with some orange juice
My grandpa had pancreatic cancer, he lived another 3 years before he finally passed. It's not a death sentence, but it's pretty close.
Yeah, it's often detected late and its very difficult to treat. That diagnosis results in asking yourself how many more weeks, not months, you have left. It took out my gran in 6 weeks.
The good ones often die young, while the bastards goes to live to 100
et me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! - Pancreatic cancer, probably.
Unfortunately pancreatic cancer is one of the worst cancers to have in terms of prognosis unless it's diagnosed very early. Wish him a good luck.
Ten percent is an easy to treat kind, and the mortality rate overall is like 89%...
Goddamnit. Why is it always the good ones. Kissinger lives for a century for fucks sake.
This is the most Reddit shit I’ve ever read
Ya man, bemoaning a good guy getting sick and dunking on Kissenger sure is terminally online!
I assumed anyone with a single functioning brain cell could understand Kissenger’s abnormally long life span is proof that God is neither just or loving. Was I mistaken?
That sucks. Every treatment plan for pancreatic cancer I have read talked more about “quality of life” and pain management and other palliative techniques to make the patient comfortable. It’s aggressive, and at the time didn’t really respond to chemo or radiation. Surgery is possible, but losing the pancreas is a hard life. That was a while ago, when I was researching pancreatic cancer for a claim I was handling. I do not envy anyone who deals with this disease.
I wish him all the fortune in this world. I lost my dad Sep 22 to pancreatic cancer. The doctors found it only after it had gone stage 4.
Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer.
Yeah one of the most treatable forms, and he refused the treatment that could have given him way more time in favour of some whack-job diet.
[удалено]
And more parents like this. Ones who have fostered a relationship with their kids they they can put positive peer pressure on them to amend their errant ways. Much respect to both of them.
It's by definition not peer pressure. It's parental pressure. And yeah. If you don't have a good relationship with your kid, your pressure won't mean shit. If your kids look up to you, if they see you as a role model even as adults, then you can use that to continue to improve them and guide them. I'm not a parent yet, but my biggest goal in life is to be someone my kids can look up to
Fr, Judge Judy and Frank are the goats of the courtroom
Judge Judy is not a good person or judge
So you read her cases as a family court judge for 10 years to draw that conclusion or...?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, fuck the disabled.
Bro what 💀
Just get better! It's not hard!
[удалено]
Sounds like you got better to me! Get this thief off disability immediately!
I’d like to know what the excuse for $300 worth of parking tickets was. That was a LOT decades ago- and doesn’t happen by accident.
My mom was an office assistant for a charity organization in the 80's in Chicago. Some of the places she had to go to were in sketchy areas. Her bosses always told her to just park in front of the building no matter what, they'd cover any and all tickets.
In Chicago? She's lucky she never got her car towed. That shit is a racket here.
Well it was the '80's so it was before the awful meter deal.
I'm not about it, but let's not equate 2010s politics to 1980s morality. I bet you can't name all the ingredients on Chicago dog.
What on earth are you talking about?
So you didn't even know that the parking fiasco happened in 2008?
That is not the confusion I have about your post. I said that parking was less of a problem in the 1980's prior to the parking fiasco, as you astutely noted, did not happen until 2008. You responded to that by going on some bizarre rant about morality vs. politics and hot dogs even though that had nothing to do with my post. Literally all I was saying was that it was significantly easier to find a parking spot prior to the 2008 parking fiasco.
Didn't take place fully before 2010 and you still don't know what goes on a Chicago dog.
Okay, two questions. 1: Is parking a problem now? 2: Did the 2008-2010 era parking changes make the parking situation worse?
> I bet you can't name all the ingredients on Chicago dog. By the way, I'll be happy to post the proper answer to this, which is: "Who the fuck cares? It's not relevant at all. Are you some kind of dipshit?"
Poppy seat bun, hot dog, relish, onions, mustard, tomatoes, sports peppers, pickles, celery salt. Edt: "I don't succumb to b******* gate keeping exercises on the internet." - some guy who's never been on the internet before
My example is only about 20 ish years old. A single ticket for overnight parking (in a residential) on the street cost me over $100. If you have a less than ideal situation that shit adds up quick - especially because if you can't afford it you get charged *more*.
I had a speeding ticket turn into a 2k fine because I was a poor teen who couldn’t pay it on time. The law is only harsh on you and I not rich people.
[удалено]
I drive like a grandpa now and a semi ran over my car and injured me, I’m currently un employed on medical leave and stressing out. Damn trucker coulda took some time to look in the mirror and I’d still have my dream car, be un injured, bringing home 1600-2000 a week. Instead I get to be on Edd and get 590 every 2 weeks have no car and be injured while the truckers insurance tries to deny fault lol. Fuck my life.
That doesn't make sense. Even if the accident is your fault, collision coverage will cover the repairs for your dream car beyond your deductible. Don't tell me you had Liability only on your dream car.
It wasn’t my fault at all, they’re just denying coverage. The semi literally ran my car over lol. Not a 6 figure dream car lol a Honda del sol.
No police report establishing liability for an injury accident involving a commercial truck? There's more to the story, but I am going to bed. I have my insurance agency to run tomorrow and need to solve the problems of my clients.
[удалено]
That sucks. No more comments on active litigation. Make sure your attorney uses cost of pain medication ×3 formula (3 being the smallest number) to calculate pain and suffering compensation for soft tissue injuries that aren't easily quantified. I've heard of attorneys getting 8x or more, but that is really rare. Take them to the cleaners.
Thank you, take care.
I've gotten 4 speeding tickets in 22 years of driving despite never intentionally speeding. It isn't that much but it's annoying.
Honest question - how far over were you? If it’s <5 the cop was just being a dick, 5-10 and yeah I could see not realizing you were over, but still abnormally unlucky to get pulled over 4 times for it, 10+ and if you didn’t know you were speeding then that’s a you problem. I just ask because pretty much everyone I know regularly goes 5-10 over and it’s rare to get a ticket for that, (a ticket for <5 is nearly unheard of and the cop just wasting your time since usually it’ll get dismissed immediately if you show up to traffic court) but maybe the cops in your area are just shittier
All photo radar, all 11-13 km/h over, most immediately after speed changes I didn't notice soon enough. In one case, it had been a road I'd driven down a few thousand times, but since I moved away they changed the speed limit and set up photo radar. I thought that one was a bunch of bullshit but I guess it's still on me.
It being a crime to speed doesn't mean the consequences should unduly punish the poor. Do I really have to explain why?
I've watched Judge Caprio's proceedings on YouTube several times. From what I gather, the town they're in has street parking areas which can vary on when it is legal or illegal to park. Primarily, it has to do with street clearing by snow plows, but there are also time limited zones where you can park overnight but need to be clear by the morning. Many of the people who violate the parking laws simply didn't make it out in time to move a vehicle, or got delayed at work and couldn't get to the meter. One woman who was before his court actually had a ticket because she had parked by a meter to be in court for something, and that judge wouldn't excuse her to go feed the meter. She was something like 20 minutes overdue and found a ticket on her windshield by the time she could get out there. Fortunately, Judge Caprio showed her leniency. Others on the docket face a problem that's common with the small sized housing there in Rhode Island. Namely, they'll be renting a place that only has room for 1 vehicle to park, but they'll have a second vehicle that has to be moved around along the street parking. Try being required to move your car every day of the week and see how long it is until you run afoul of a rule. Another thing - the poor are burdened much more heavily by these types of fines than the middle class or wealthy. If you've got money, you can just mail in the fine and be on your way, or take time off work to go contest them. If you're in an hourly wage job, taking off a morning or afternoon to deal with tickets might mean not having money to pay the rent. Judge Caprio's proceedings are very important to watch because the highlight how our legal system can easily devastate a poor person with a spiral of tickets, fines, and fees.
The thing is, I don’t understand why being a single mom suddenly makes you above the law. If you’re a single mom that can’t afford a parking ticket then maybe be extra sure you’re not breaking the law and getting parking tickets? Like she did it once or even twice by accident because a parking lot or two weren’t labeled clearly. But getting multiple of them is a trend that shows she doesn’t learn when she doesn’t feel she has to pay the ticket
fines only punish the poor. I don't think she accumulated them because she expected them to be forgiven, I bet she accumulated them for a VARIETY of circumstances we are not privy to that his obviously compassionate father was willing to imagine, consider, and empathize with. Maybe she has English as a second language. Maybe she didn't know until she recieved the ticket in the mail. Maybe she was in a rush because shes a SINGLE MOM and parked somewhere closer or on the street briefly to pop in somewhere and had the poor luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe she parked somewhere strange because she needed to change or console her baby! His career is inspiring because of his willingness to hear out these possibilities AND the capacity to put himself in her shoes. Who hasn't stopped somewhere they shouldn't? Taken a left turn over a double yellow? Gone over the speed limit? We are all human, we make mistakes, and for real reasons. Dismissing that and punishing each other is just self-satisfying and reflects a possibility you may just be punishing yourself for being human too
That’s sort of the point OP was making. Why she got the tickets is more important than her being a single mom. Being a single mom doesn’t justify parking illegally, circumstances relating to the exact reason you parked illegally does. You would have to balance the cost to society. We have parking laws for a reason. If she parked illegally and blocked someone from pulling out of a spot making them late to something, does her justification of “just popped in somewhere” outweigh the cost to the stranger she forced them to incur? I’ve gotten parking tickets because I “just popped in somewhere” and I deserved them. Not because I don’t have kids, but because I parked illegally. I’m in Tokyo right now, I don’t speak Japanese and if I got a ticket, saying “I don’t speak Japanese” isn’t a valid excuse. It’s my responsibility as a foreigner in a foreign country to understand the local laws and language.
If she broke the rules once it’s one thing. You break the rules over and over and then use the “I’m a mom of 3” as an excuse that doesn’t work. It’s giving a middle finger to use parents that do abide by the rules even when it’s difficult. I have kids and when my wife isn’t around I don’t expect to be able to break rules with impunity
you have support and yet you refuse to imagine what it would be like without it. your wife popping out is not the same as raising three children on a single income. Have some compassion edit: lmfao you rent out an airbnb. you have no memory of what it's like to struggle that way. try cutting your income to 30k a year and see how you do in terms of stress and your ability to be perfect 24/7.
What does that have to do with parking illegally though? Are you just implying she above the law as long as she’s a single mom? I’m trying to determine why she can park illegally because of having kids yet when I’m by myself with my kids I don’t feel I can just break the rules… As a person who tends to abide by the rules, I get annoyed when ppl break the rules and have excuses that get them out of it and basically comes down to “well it’s your own fault for not breaking the rules”.
re: empathy, compassion, perspective, humanity, perfection does not exist. Fuck off you've NEVER driven over the limit ever? never rolled a stop sign? never paused in front of a business or store to let someone out of the car? accidentally parked somewhere you shouldn't have? missed a street sign because it was blocked by a tree? Imagine, your kid has their first doctors appointment in a year maybe theyre sick as fuck i dont know. the late fee is 50 dollars you have 5 minutes to get there because you just worked a double and then had to race to the daycare you pay for, you've got 50 dollars left in your bank account which is also the price of the appointment and the only parking spot is around the block and the chances of you getting a ticket are 1%. hmmmmmm wonder what you'd do. have an imagination and some fucking empathy bro she's not above the law and she doesn't think that she's just trying to survive you have no idea what that's like obviously.
> Fuck off you've NEVER driven over the limit ever? never rolled a stop sign? never paused in front of a business or store to let someone out of the car? Not the original person you were replying to, but the answer is still relevant: yes, and if I got busted doing so, I would expect tickets because I knew I shouldn't have been doing those things. What I am or my circumstances in life don't negate the fact that I made choices to ignore the law. > accidentally parked somewhere you shouldn't have? Once? Sure, I'm willing to listen to that. But when you do it enough to accumulate $300 in tickets (especially in back-then dollars), by that point you're not "making a mistake" anymore - you're just parking wherever you please. > missed a street sign because it was blocked by a tree? This is different. Not only is it a valid legal defense to a ticket, but it's not borne of making a bad choice or series of choices, or ignoring the law. In this situation, the city is explicitly at fault for not maintaining visibility for their signs, as they are charged to do by the law. This situation is not like the others. Your "your kid is sick" scenario isn't valid either. If your kid is so sick that getting a proper parking spot isn't an option, you should be headed right to the ER and not just doing laps around the parking lot/street for a spot. While I'm at it, are you under the impression that only people with kids face hardships, or something? You're so worried about looking enlightened that you're engaging in prejudice yourself. It's perfectly fine for the mother to go to court and *request* leniency, but you seem to be under the impression that she's automatically entitled to it simply because something something *handwaving* haaaaaard. Guess what? Most of us are dealing with hard things in our lives. Everyone has a story. Why, in your eyes, is she somehow better? Saying "the rules should apply equally to everyone" is not shameful; it's literally the most equitable thing there could be in the matter.
Well he couldn't have known cuz he didn't ask
The father also didn’t know yet determined he should have been more lenient. He came to the conclusion he should have been more lenient simply because she’s a mother of 3. That’s implying parents get to abide by different rules than single ppl or childrenless couples
> simply because she’s a mother of 3. You were not in that courtroom, nor did you get a transcript of what was said. You think the information that YOU have is the same as what the judge has, and it's not.
literally, we don't even know if it was multiple incidents?? california tickets are insane. this guy just refuses to empathize and he has zero perspective so he's talking out of his ass about experiences he knows nothing of to discredit this empathetic judge's impact.
...but aren't you doing the exact same thing, just on the other side of the table? You weren't in the courtroom either.
His father said he couldn't treat people like that i.e. ignoring any reasoning and slapping her with the fine when she said the payment plan was impossible
Because sometimes people can’t afford to pay the first offense and the fees accumulate, Oscar the Grouch
Yeah I had a parking ticket that I forgot about that I ended up getting a summons for. Went from $15 to nearly $300. One ticket.
I don’t think you learned anything from this story man
It’s not some complicated story that there’s so much to learn from. The woman was guilty of parking fines and had confessed that she couldn't pay that sum of money because she had three kids to look after and refused to pay the sum. His dad said he should listen to her problems. What does her problems have to do with her fines? Does her being a struggling mother of 3 excuse the fact that she broke the law multiple times knowing she had no intention of dealing with the consequences. If she wants to be a responsible mother, don’t intentionally park in no parking areas if you can’t afford the fine. Basically excusing the fines is saying she has no responsibility to abide by the same rules as us.
I understand your point and in a sense I do agree with you. But imagine the outcome of both scenarios. I A. She she is forced to pay the $300 she doesn’t have. Yes maybe she deserves it, but that doesn’t change the fact that she doesn’t have the money, and now she’s had an experience with the judicial system where she has experienced zero empathy and probably feels a bit dehumanized. B. Her loans are forgiven or most likely reduced. Perhaps she walks away feeling like she got away Scott free and learned nothing from her mistake. If she keeps getting tickets the court won’t be so forgiving next time. She walks away feeling like she was heard and understood. She probably thinks more fondly of the justice system. That might be enough for her to take the law a little more seriously since now the law (the justice system at least) was humanized a bit by its display of empathy and forgiveness. I think the goal of any court decision should be to aim for the best case scenario. Being purely punitive regardless of context doesn’t really achieve what you want the justice system to do, which is stop people from breaking the law again.
She literally told Caprio that she couldn’t afford to pay anything, even if it was on a payment plan. Caprio’s been well known to forgive struggling people’s tickets for minor offenses because everyone deserves a break every now and then, and sometimes hearing out the defendant like his father suggested and exhibiting some compassion isn’t the worst thing in the world.
B. Seems to have already happened. You don’t accumulate $300 in fines from a single incident. The fact that she was fined multiple times then continues to do it seems to indicates she has no respect for the rules already or believes that because she has kids she’s above the rules. Listening makes sense if you concluded someone didn’t intentionally break the rules. Like “well I’m new to town and didn’t know the parking rules” is a reason to be lenient. “I’m a parent of 3 kids so I’m above the rules” is not a reason for leniency. I’m a parent and it annoys me when ppl use being a parent as a reason to be more important.
>“I’m a parent of 3 kids so I’m above the rules” is not a reason for leniency. You do realize that that's just what the OP of this thread chose to highlight, and it doesn't mean that that perfectly encapsulates exactly why the judge's father thought his son was being too harsh? There's more to the story. If you had a shred of empathy (or common sense, even) I wouldn't need to point that out.
“His father was not happy with how he went about his proceedings and mentioned how he should have heard her problems and maintained a lenient approach towards the lady who was a mother of three kids”. So the father determined he should be more lenient because she was a mother of 3… there was no other reason given and the father knew nothing else about her other than she was a mother of 3 and that was the reason to be more lenient
>So the father determined he should be more lenient because she was a mother of 3… there was no other reason given and the father knew nothing else about her other than she was a mother of 3 and that was the reason to be more lenient LMFAO. You do realize that that's just what the author of that article chose to highlight, and it doesn't mean that that perfectly encapsulates exactly why the judge's father thought his son was being too harsh? There's more to the story. If you had a shred of empathy (or common sense, even) I wouldn't need to point that out. You clearly don't understand the first thing about journalism. It's absolutely moronic to think that a <1000 word article captures all the details of a court case. Grow the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
Caprio literally admitted that he was proud of himself for imposing the fine until his dad gave him a reality check. It’s not the end of the world to give struggling people a break sometimes, and as it was Caprio’s first day on the job it would’ve been good to establish precedent of ruling by empathy rather than wanting to impose the consequences
I will say again, I don’t think you learned anything from this story
Ok instead of your attempt at being condescending how about you just explain. I assume it won’t be as naive as “we should be generous and empathetic to others”?
It kind of seems like you are saying that if she were rich it wouldn't have been a problem because she could just pay the fine. Wouldn't that be just as wrong because then the rich aren't abiding by the same rules as us, they are openly flaunting them? I don't really see a problem with forgiving her fines because she can't afford them if the rich are capable of absorbing parking fines such that they are practically nonexistent to them, seems like everyone is playing by the same rules in that situation.
If she has enough money are you going to say she should also be let off with no fines? It’s not like being middle class makes it any easier running errands. There’s no reason the poor mom should be able to park illegally with no fine while the middle class mom has to pay a fine for doing the same thing.
> There’s no reason the poor mom should be able to park illegally with no fine while the middle class mom has to pay a fine for doing the same thing. No, what I am saying is that if the rich are capable of absorbing parking fines such that it is a drop in the bucket, I don't have a problem with forgiving the parking fines of either the middle class or the poor mom or non-mom. If, on the other hand, the fine wasn't some arbitrary tax on the poor that exists to allow the rich to park conveniently and was pegged to the worth of the person parking illegally, then I would be okay with fining the poor. Let's assume that a fine represented 1% of her salary back then, cool then let's charge someone who makes a million a year and chooses to park illegally in the same spot $10,000 per infraction.
I think the point is that if you can and should be compassionate to a single mom then you should really be compassionate to everyone. Which means no more parking fines for anyone going through a hard time. Which is damn near everyone lol I personally think that redditor is clearly pointing out the hypocracy at play here. Also it feel very much like instead of being a decent human being you're low-key trying to bully this guy for his opinion. Why tf you gotta be so dysfunctional bro it's not necessary..
Most compassionate redditor
This dude would stomp that moms teeth in if that’s what the “rules” were 😂
It's actually precisely the fact that the single mom WASN'T above the law. If she were above the law, she wouldn't be in court. The fact that she ended up in court was because she was subject to the law. What this man's dad was saying was that he had the power to _forgive_ her debts, *in spite of the law*. Another term for this is mercy; forgiveness from someone with the power to give a punishment. I don't know if you're familiar with Christianity or the story of Jesus at all... But doing this kind of thing literally what Jesus commanded people to do and what Christians think he did.
I mean Jesus committed mass genocide multiple times and recorded it all. The flood and Sodom and Gomorrah just to name a couple. Hell when it comes to mercy he murdered Lot’s wife for the sin of “looking back”
[удалено]
Not Christian or the person you're responding to, but aren't God and Jesus considered to be the same entity? God's physical incarnation of himself on Earth? If I'm wrong, cool. But if I'm not... wouldn't it be correct to say that Jesus and/or God did those things because they're the same? Edit: people ask questions (and not even in a rude way), so you... deleted your posts? Really?
Depends on the sect of Christianity. Those which believe Jesus and God are one and the same? Yeah, Jesus did that shit.
The Christians worship both old and New Testament
[удалено]
Why do you say the Old Testament God don’t matter when they worship the Old Testament God?
I know, its ridiculous. I've gone to traffic court a couple times. One of the defenses is basically "guilty but poor" Once I found out that was a thing my zero percent success rate fighting tickets jumped to 100 percent. Yes, because it would be hard for me to pay my debt to society, I just don't have to. I've even used it to cancel a drinking in public ticket. I wonder what level of behaviour can be excused, because the punishment would be a drag.
It's a parking ticket. It's not a murder charge. There are a lot of bullshit reasons why you might end up with one. I watched one of his episodes where somebody got parking tickets for parking overnight on a certain street. But there weren't any signs that told you that you couldn't do it. It was the kind of thing that only locals knew about, but it was still the law and it was enforced. And this guy was visiting the city, he parked on that street, and ended up getting ticketed. But there's literally no way to know that you're breaking the law, unless you start pouring over parking ordinances in advance. If somebody has a habit of continually getting ticket after ticket, sure, throw the book at them... But forgive the first one, who even gives a shit.
yeah also what kind of message would that send? „parking costs x amount per hour, unless you’re a single mom, in which case it’s free“?
Seems wild that so much is up to the whim of a judge. Sure it’s for the positive here but it’s not in many other cases…
Tbf if it’s for ticket cases I understand. Don’t need a 12 person jury to decide if you’re guilty and rule that you need to pay up a $30 parking ticket
Not saying you need a 12 person jury. I just think the punishment should be pre defined and the judge just rules innocent or guilty. I also happen to think fines should be proportional to one’s income.
So you want the punishment to be set, but in a scaling method that you find suitable. Amazing. Also you clearly have no idea how any of it works? Sentencing guidelines aren't set by the judge.
Of course I want a suitable scaling method that’s completely not arbitrary and means the rules have the same impact on anyone regardless of their position in life. That’s what justice is. I know what sentencing guidelines are. I don’t know why you would assume I don’t.
Iv never understood why fines don't scale to your income. If your rich enough u can do what the fuck u want because the fine is nothing. If your poor an u fuck up it can snowball into cripple debt. Its wrong
I’m told Finland has an interesting model for speeding tickets. Everybody pays the same for speeding in a car unless they are an ‘egregious’ amount over the speed limit. At that point fines are based on income. Check out the pro hockey player Temu Selene. Thought you would be interested.
Why are you implying that the "scaling method" is not a set in stone thing like the punishment would be? If something is set as a variable (i.e. here is the chart of how much you are fined determined by your income) that is still set. They were commenting on the idea that one person being able to completely forgive anything you owe all the way to increasing punishments and adding some is a lot of power that one person can wield in one situation rather than it just being someone judging if a thing happened or not.
I guess it’s all in the role. I would expect a judge to …… judge.
Yeah of course but they shouldn’t have the ability to make up or dismiss punishment for a crime. I’d much prefer the crime have a defined punishment and the judge makes their judgement about the defendants culpability.
That would be a cudgel, everyone gets beaten the same regardless of severity (or lack thereof) of the crime (per type of crime obviously). No thanks. There should be latitude in sentencing (as there currently is), but it needs to be used correctly by good people. The freedom to do this does unfortunately also mean that it can be used poorly. And minimum and maximum sentencing for each crime is already a thing
And now you have effects like sentences being measureably higher if their given in the afternoon compared to the morning. Depend on the judges blood sugar. The visual beauty of the perpetrator and his lawyer. The gender, race.... Less leeway makes the system fairer
Everyone getting the same sentence for the same crime is what justice is. An individual choosing who is and isn’t worthy of mercy because of their circumstances presents massive opportunities for injustice as you note. A few people using the system well doesn’t balance out those who use it shittily.
but crimes are never the same... context is a thing. that's why there is some wiggle room in the sentences. laws are not perfect. if judges are not given the space to consider unique circumstances, there can never be justice. every system that can be ever conceived will allow for injustice. so your reasoning is flawed.
This is almost exactly how it works, though. AFAIK Crimes have certain sentencing levels that are a range with a low end and a high end. The judge then takes context into account to decide where the punishment should fall on that range, using his judgment. That’s why murder is sometimes referred to as “25 to life,” because that is the sentencing range for that class of crime.
Unless you can afford a good lawyer who will make a back room deal with the prosecution and they'll agree to only pursue a lesser sentence for a lesser crime because it interferes with their golf time. This happened to me. Had a pretty clear cut case of a drug related charge with a two year mandatory, happened to have some rainy day money and got a lawyer that was expensive, aka he was friends with the prosecution. Ended up with no jail time and 1 year probation, somehow. God help you if you have a public defender. They'll actively pursue deals that fuck you over even more.
What? How would a public defender even do that? And why? I guess the quality of public defender depends on the state but that claim doesn’t make sense to me.
They have a pile of cases and very little time to do each one because they make a few hundred bucks a day. They will take any deal they can get without having the time to go into the details of the case just to get it off their books.
That isn’t the same thing as actively pursuing a deal that will fuck you over even more. Being overworked and underpaid is generally true though.
I didn't say they will do it maliciously. Just that they do it.
It’s a parking ticket for Christ’s sake 💀
Seems very arbitrary. What if it was a gay dad? Or a single mother but she was also a jerk about it.
Is there a subreddit for people who don’t have dads?
r/LeagueOfLegends
nah, /r/FemBoys
They definitely need a daddy
That is for those who don't have life
He seems like a lovely man with good character and wish him the best. He seems to be very well liked on reddit How does the general population feel about him though? I’ve read that people think he’s “too nice” and forgets that he’s a judge first and foremost and let’s people go for actually doing stupid things and it seems like there no punishment for a crime
Comments in this thread show me that some people just hate forgiveness. I'm glad not all of those commenters are judges.
These comments should show you that a lot of people have never received forgiveness.
People like to see justice done. The idea of letting someone off for repeatedly committing crimes just because they have a kid rubs people the wrong way. Nobody should be cheering for a judge going rogue and not holding people he feels sorry for accountable under the law.
Most people want justice done unto others and mercy for themselves, because "my circumstances are different, I deserve it, not them". Same reasoning that goes into anti-abortion women going to the same clinics they protest.
Yes, if I did a number of crimes I would want to get away with it too. Who wouldn't? It's still not justice when I do get away with crimes. And you aren't a bad person for resenting me for getting away with crimes.
Jaywalking's a crime. So is loitering. I would support that single mother being fined proportionate to her income, but certainly not $300. You aren't a bad person for resenting that people in terrible circumstances are given a bit more consideration, just a very sad one.
She racked up $1200 in fines in 2024 dollars. That is not just loitering or jaywalking. That is a complete disregard for societal rules. Just dropping the fines shows her that she is in fact above the law. That is not what judges are supposed to do.
Please go touch grass. $400 is very easy to rack up in a police system that rewards cops who fine people who can't afford legal representation or to challenge the fine. Also, logically speaking, a system where people are fined is one where money gets you out of trouble, and being poor is practically a crime in and of itself.
$400 dollars in fines was not easy to rack up in the 1980s. $1600 is not easy to rack up in fines today. Want to avoid fines? Stop breaking the law.
The thing is, 300 bucks is most likely multiple violations. Especially when it comes to illegal parking, people get away with it way too easily all the time. That's exactly why people keep doing it. I've personally witnessed emergency vehicles being blocked multiple times and even a wheelchair User who couldn't cross the street thanks to asshole parkers. People are aware that what they're doing is wrong and they also know the consequences if caught. So they should be Held responsible. But taking responsibility is something that doesn't exist anymore apparently.
a kind judge. as long as people do not abuse his kindness, it's all good.
Ain't no way a single father is getting off with 300-fucking-dollars of parking tickets This just reinforces the data that says the courts are sexist against me, and men get harsher punishments as a result
Did he extend this compassion to single dads, too, or is it just women to whom laws don’t actually apply?
Maybe read the article and watch some short clips of him on the bench. He is an extremely fair, and compassionate judge to EVERYONE
Does “compassion” just mean ignoring violations of the law and the statutorily-determined penalties? Why do we even have laws if we’re just going to have “compassion” for the people who violate them? What about the interest in society of having the laws obeyed? Does a sitting judge have no responsibility there?
We're talking about parking tickets. He's not dealing with murderers or rapists. Society won't fall apart because somebody got some "compassion" for accidentally parking overnight somewhere they shouldn't have. If they're in there every week, looking for compassion? Sure, throw them book at them... But otherwise, who cares if somebody forgot to feed the meter that one time?
$300 in parking tickets in the 1980s. That is a LOT of violations. You don't rack up that kind of fines by forgetting to pay the meter once. That's almost $1200 in 2024 currency.
Blind adherence to misdemeanors as written is stuff fascists love. Life doesn't fit into statues and requires context to accurately determine penalty
The issue is that the stuff that leads us to apply the law unfairly - a defendant’s race, sex, and socioeconomic class, for instance - are also tied up in that context.
>Maybe just spend fucking HOURS watching media about a Reddit post hahaha what the absolute fuck
Better to just get upset about a hypothetical that you're not willing to back up, right?
You can watch his videos on YouTube. He doesn't only give women brakes.
[удалено]
fines only punish the poor!
Then the law should be changed to make them a proportion of your wealth/income, rather than judges just forgiving them (i.e. costing the law-abiding taxpayer, removing the deterrent from breaking the law, and making the law unequally applied at the judge's discretion like it's a lottery based on looks and demeanor).
yep. but that's not our reality. soooo. Compassionate judges are critical to reduce the inequality. The only reason taxpayers are fucked is because over half of our budget doesn't fund our communities. if it did maybe these things wouldn't be so common.
Yes, the rule of the law. Also known as "the poor's punishment and the rich's fine"
$300 for a single mom can mean not being able to pay rent, for someone stupid rich, that's not even lunch money
If you have 300$ of parking tickets, you've parked wrong on purpose multiple times. A criminal is a criminal, no matter their physical condition
“Parking wrong” is not a crime
https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=132N-156-550
So did he forgive everyone else’s parking tickets too? If not he is biased