Quick Takes (v65): Law and Order, or Something

I thought about writing this one as an Irony Board piece, but given the subject matter, it seemed more appropriate to use the 'Quick Takes' theme. 

I have no idea why Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-Pol of Lies, NC) has so much trouble obeying the law. Maybe he's always in a hurry to get back to DC for one of those orgies he told us about? Or maybe a drug party?  

I don't know, but for a kid, he's building up quite a record of violations, across several states. Here's a summary.

• Oct. 13, 2011, Henderson County, NC: speeding. Case disposed Jan. 25, 2012. Pleaded guilty to a lesser speed, fined $40.

• Feb. 27, 2016, Henderson County, NC: speeding and expired registration card/tag. Case disposed May 18, 2016. Pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of failure to wear seat belt in rear seat; fined $75; The expired registration card/tag charge was dismissed. (How, exactly, do you get that lesser charge option?)

• April 21, 2016, South Carolina: speeding more than 25 mph over the speed limit. Pleaded down to a 10-miles-over violation in July 2016.

• Oct. 7, 2016, Virginia: following too close. Case resolved Jan. 27, 2017. 

• Dec. 8, 2017, Buncombe County, NC: driving while license revoked (but not impaired). Case dismissed Dec. 29, 2017. 

• Dec. 12, 2019, Georgia: speeding more than 25 mph over the speed limit and having expired tags, followed by a charge of failure to appear on Feb. 7, 2020. Plea deal negotiated in August 2021. 

• Oct. 18, 2021, Buncombe County, NC: speeding. Case disposed March 4, 2022. Pleaded guilty to improper equipment, fined $25. 

• Jan. 8, 2022, Polk County, NC: speeding, traveling 87 mph in a 70 mph. Court date is June 2. 

• March 3, 2022, Cleveland County, NC: driving while license revoked (but not impaired). Court date is May 6. 

Now, he's not just a speed demon, he's sometimes armed - or, when he thinks it's useful, he claims he's armed. 

• Jan. 6, 2021: Cawthorn said he was armed on the day Trump insurrectionists attacked the Capitol building. Not sure why he felt the need to be armed on that particular day, or why he felt the need to tell people he went to work armed that day. Bringing weapons to the Capitol, and to Senate and House buildings, is prohibited, of course.

• February 2021: Cawthorn attempted to board a plane in Asheville with a handgun and a loaded magazine in his luggage. He was not charged; the gun and ammo were held for him to pick up when he returned. Rules on charging people for this stupidity vary by location.

• Also in 2021: Cawthorn visited schools around North Carolina, and was accused of bringing a knife to at least four of those visits. There are a number of laws that could apply to Cawthorn's possession of knives on school grounds.

It's no secret that Cawthorn's a jerk, or that he's a proven liar; he's also been accused of predatory behavior towards women. 

I'd say he's a stain on the House of Representatives, but I guess I'd be wrong.

After all, without irony, Cawthorn was named to the House Veterans Affairs Committee - after claiming the reason he didn't make it into the US Naval Academy was because of his car accident. That's a bald-faced lie; he had already been rejected before he had the accident. 

And, also without irony? The party of law and order, the 'rule of law' folks, seem to think he's good enough for them.

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: Why Not Treat All Laws the Same?

Robbery, assault and battery, the felon and his felony.

Robbery, assault and battery, the felon and his felony.

Criminals will always be criminals, they say.

They will still get guns, the story goes, and so we don't need any gun laws, or better gun laws, or more gun laws, because criminals will always be criminals, they'll get their guns, there's nothing we can do about it, laws only punish the law abiding, do you think people who are contemplating committing a crime even care about the laws or the punishment? They're criminals for heaven's sake. (Or they're mentally ill, or angry, or prompted by rhetoric, or racists, depending on circumstance, ethnicity, and who the victims are, it seems.)

Using that logic, here is one middle-aged white lady's take on some other laws we can get rid of:

1. Driving while intoxicated, and under-aged drinking, selling alcohol to minors, and the like. The only people who do this are bad people and they'll continue doing it anyway. Because they're criminals. Or teenagers, which is really just the same thing.
2. Robbery, Assault, and Battery. Yeah, I know, it's a Genesis song (hence the lyrics at the beginning of this post). But in reality, there's no need to have any laws related to this, because people who rob, assault and batter will do it anyway, and what the heck, the rest of us would never do that, because we're good people. Throw in breaking and entering too. These people are criminals, they will not be deterred merely by having laws on the books.
3. Selling drugs. Another whole category of laws that we don't need. I mean, if people wouldn't buy drugs, they're would be no one selling them, and only bad people buy drugs, right?
4. Rape, domestic violence, sexual assault. Come on ladies and gentlemen, just relax and give in, and you won't get hurt. You might enjoy it, or whatever the hell else the Republicans have been telling us for years. 
5. Airbag and seat belt laws. And speed limits. And passing school buses with their red flashers on. Sure, these laws save lives, but only stupid people would ride in or drive a car without wearing their seat belts or without airbags. They deserve their fate. And speeders? They're just asshats, like the people who pass school buses some 50,000 times per day according to folks in New York.
6. Murder, manslaughter, and the like. 
7. Laws against pedophilia and other sex crimes against children. Adults will be adults, and they'll always prey on children, and that's just the way it is. Criminals will be criminals. And while we're at it, they should be allowed to live anywhere they please, be janitors in elementary schools and stuff. And that whole teachers-can't-have-sex-with-their-students thing?  Yeah, we don't need those laws either, because you know (wink wink), good for them (nudge nudge), and the kids must think it's awesome, right? All that attention, especially if Mr English Teacher or Ms Math Teacher are the school hotties!
8. White collar crimes, medical fraud, pyramid schemes, identity theft, and all of those. Listen, the fact that our technology has advanced to the point we can practically pee and poop with our smart phones, that's just the way it is. People keep figuring out ways to get ahead of the technology and steal money, or identities, or medical information and collect billions fraudulently and so on. Well, more power to them for figuring it out and taking advantage, there's certainly no need for laws on this. It sucks, but only criminals and foreign governments do this kind of stuff anyway. Just move on.
9. Any laws related to abortion, or keeping people alive on machines against their will, or frankly any laws about any other medical procedures, devices, facilities or practitioners. Unnecessary, one and all. I mean, who comes up with this crazy stuff? We would never ask anyone else to go through this to participate in a legal activity, right? Get rid of them.
10. Laws related to voting. Only cheaters and criminals would try and vote illegally, and we know they're out there but there's no reason to make it harder for any law-abiding citizen to vote, right? No restrictions on polling places, or voting hours, or early voting periods. All voting districts - rich and poor, black and white, predominantly Republican or predominantly Democratic, etc. - would have the same rules: none.  

This isn't rocket science, folks. Heck, if we just got rid of all these laws, and the other ones on the books, we wouldn't need all those cops and judges and Lawyers, Guns and Money. Oh wait, we'll still need the guns and money. 

The cops, judges and lawyers? They can go on public assistance.

The Update Desk: Parking Scofflaws

Seven months ago, I did an update on the decision by the City of Syracuse to hire a private contractor to track and 'boot' the cars of parking scofflaws.

The Syracuse Common Council had just approved a contract with PayLock, a New Jersey company that had been providing the boots all along, to try and track down cars owned by the some 20,000 or so scofflaws.  Any thought of offering an amnesty program, something which had been suggested by Councilor Jake Barrett, had been turned down.

From June 20th through September 30th, PayLock booted over 1000 cars which led to payment of over $360,000 in fines, according to a recent article. That's about triple the booting and about double the fines compared to last year, when the work was handled by the Syracuse Police Department.  And as I noted in the prior posts, the SPD has more important things to do than boot cars (on overtime, no less). Another local media report says PayLock is averaging about a boot an hour, using their system of scanners to identify bootable vehicles, and a computer to confirm that the outstanding tickets have not been paid.

I hope that folks within the city government and, frankly, local businesses, continue to look for similar opportunities to save taxpayers money and increase revenues for our financially-challenged city.

Amnesty? Shamnesty!

The Syracuse Common Council, long referred to as "Syracuse's greatest deliberative body" by the late Post-Standard columnist Bob Haggart, could have voted this week on whether to hire a company to boot the cars of parking scofflaws. But they didn't.

Some history: Syracuse started booting cars back in 2008; to receive the yellow boot, a person has to have three delinquent parking tickets, each at least 90 days old.  In 2008, there were 12,819 boot-eligible vehicles, owing $4,800,000; by 2012, there were 19,457 vehicles owing $7,900,000, according to a published report.

Here's a story from July of 2008, touting the benefits of the new booting program:

Since Syracuse's booting law took effect Jan. 1, the city has taken in $2,186,000 in parking tickets, surcharges and late fees, said Richard Scheutzow, director of the city's Parking Violations Bureau. The city is on track to top $4 million this year, more than twice the amount collected in any year during the past decade...  The bulk of the revenue comes from people paying their tickets voluntarily or through a collection agency, Scheutzow said... It's clear that fear of the boot is driving scofflaws to haul themselves in to the parking bureau before they are caught, Scheutzow said. The increase in parking payments started in October, when the impending booting law was announced, and it has held steady since then. Scheutzow and city police agree that the booting effort has increased compliance with parking laws and payment of parking tickets. "It's working out fantastic," said police Lt. Joe Sweeny, who oversees the booting program.

Since 2008, revenues from the booting program have fallen significantly. Part of  that was because having police officers cruising parking lots looking for boot-able cars was not an effective use of their time; it became even a less effective use of taxpayer dollars when the Police Department starting having officers handle the scofflaw cruises primarily on overtime. Mayor Stephanie Miner ended the overtime booting in 2011.

So now Pay Lock, the company that has provided the boots from the beginning, wants to take over the whole program, including the scofflaw cruises, for 28% of the take. They'd have people on the streets seven hours a day, five days a week, and the city would not be on the hook for salaries and benefits. And, with the increased effort, the city would see an additional $630,000 more than is being collected today.  Seems hard not to like this idea, doesn't it?

But then, there must be delieration, because it is the Common Council after all.  Deliberation including discussion on whether we need to have an amnesty period before changing the program. 1st District Councilor Jake Barrett offered this:

Maybe there's a fairness issue. We're changing the system. Let's give them a chance to pay.

Um, the people who need to get the boot have ignored at least three parking tickets for at least 90 days each.  They've been notified. They owe the city almost $8,000,000. The city is in dire financial straits.  Do we really need to consider an amnesty program because we're "changing the system" and being more aggressive in collecting the millions of dollars that these folks owe? 

And on the subject of amnesty, let's go back again to July 2008; here's one last comment from the article on the booting program.

Scheutzow  said that, given the success of the program, the city will never again need to offer a parking amnesty program to violators. The last amnesty in 2003 forgave late fees and penalties and brought in more than $1 million.

We don't need to, and cannot afford to, forgive a few million bucks to be kind to scofflaws.  What we do need to do is get back to the aggressive enforcement and revenue collection. 

Here's hoping the Common Council votes to approve the contract with Pay Lock at the earliest opportunity, April Fool's Day, and that Pay Lock gets to work as soon as possible.

Fools they would be if they do otherwise.