60 days in jail for not paying a $2.75 subway fare costs the city $22,000

https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/status/1124319301694107650

by laurex • 7 years ago

119 108 7 years ago

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

astrodust• 7 years ago

At that rate it's nearly cheaper to send them to Princeton with full room and board: https://admission.princeton.edu/cost-aid/fees-payment-option...

CharlesColeman• 7 years ago

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.

everdev3• 7 years ago

Hyatt with an ankle bracelet?

azhenley• 7 years ago

I could see a politician justifying the $500 a night by saying the money is going back into the local economy and creating jobs at the jail.

tus87• 7 years ago

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

gabelevi2• 7 years ago

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://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/why-did-crime-...

tananaev• 7 years ago

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

Then it does seem a bit excessive.

brianpgordon• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

Tsubasachan2• 7 years ago

Neither of those points is an excuse for breaking the law unless you're mentally ill. In which case you should still be locked up but this time in a mental institution.

Just pay for your ticket or walk.

unqueued• 7 years ago

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?

delecti• 7 years ago

It's generally the case that a significant chance of being caught is a much bigger deterrent than a significant punishment if you are caught.

https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

Frqy3• 7 years ago

We are moving towards a state where technology will allow us to punish every infraction every time, automatically and at low marginal processing cost. I expect that rebalancing the punishments to match the new likelihood of getting caught will lag by at least 5-10 years, causing greater social problems in the interim.

crooked-v• 7 years ago

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

Rational deterrence theory and associated studies generally hold that the scale of deterrence means very little if it isn't reliably put into use.

That is to say, picking out a few unlucky rule violators and inflicting tremendous punishments on them has very little effect, while reliably inflicting minor punishments on most people who violate the rules has a much more noticeable effect on compliance.

dls20165• 7 years ago

Ok, now make the same argument for those guilty of wage theft and see how much push back you get.

(Estimates suggest wage theft and shoplifting both cost the US economy ~$40 billion/year. But one of these crimes results in virtually zero jail time.)

What is behind the US love affair with jail? It's perverse.

uxp1004• 7 years ago

"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)

free6524• 7 years ago

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.

addicted3• 7 years ago

That assumes people would pay the money otherwise. Which is almost certainly not true.

The people who don’t pay likely don’t have the money in the first place or are drunk. It’s unlikely they would have paid any ways.

zaroth2• 7 years ago

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

CamperBob2• 7 years ago

Despite quoting that I'm not a hardcore leftist (anymore).

I don't see that as a leftist quote. The police aren't supposed to be a profit center.

Gibbon1• 7 years ago

The idea that the police are supposed to be a profit center is a neo-liberal thing not liberal or conservative.

You can make an argument that based on enforcement costs, the subsidies alternative transportation receive, and the externalities of such that the optimal fare price for public transportation is negative. If the optimal fair price is negative then you shouldn't charge fares at all. You can find leftists, conservatives, fascists that agree with that.

uxp1004• 7 years ago

Well the man who said it is a leftist, and was making a leftist point overall. But out of context it is more of a neutral analysis.

hi5eyes• 7 years ago

former anarcho crust punks rise up o7

dls20165• 7 years ago

Ok, but when was the last time anyone ever went to jail for wage theft? Once you look at which crimes lead to arrest and the racial/economic background of those arrested, this quote quickly stops making sense. It's the broken windows theory, plain and simple.

uxp1004• 7 years ago

What do you think the meaning of the quote is I guess? One point of the quote is that protection of the concept of private property is a function of the police. It's more of a piece of (I think accurate) neutral analysis with how I've used it, but I think you have a different perspective on what this means if you think it "stops making sense."

segmondy• 7 years ago

You can't compare bank robbery, it's usually done with force or threat of force. The tellers are usually traumatized...

everdev3• 7 years ago

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.

Taniwha• 7 years ago

but if we didn't arrest all those people we wouldn't need as many police or as much prison space .... they're not sunk, just costs that can go away over time if you don't need to pay them

k_sh• 7 years ago

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...

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062215/busin...

eridius• 7 years ago

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

everdev3• 7 years ago

True, but the reference is to Riker's island which is a public prison.

rib3ye• 7 years ago

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

Tsubasachan2• 7 years ago

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.

bargl3• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

addicted3• 7 years ago

This is almost the definition of the slippery slope fallacy.

No one is arguing there should be no deterrent at all. The argument is that the current punishment is too high and is well beyond being a reasonable deterrent.

gabelevi2• 7 years ago

Well this deterrent isn't really working. Fare evasion is currently a big problem for the MTA (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/mta-fare-evasion-one-...)

It's also not clear to me that it is ethical to have a punishment be far more extreme than a crime. Sending someone to jail for 40 days for stealing $2.75 seems a little extreme. That could easily turn a poor person with a job into a homeless person with no job.

A fine feels more appropriate. Maybe free rides for those who legitimately can't afford the fare.

cortesoft3• 7 years ago

I agree on the principle, but shouldn't we examine if the deterrent is working? Can we look at rates of fare jumping in places with less strict laws? Maybe try reducing the penalty and see if rates of fare jumping actually increase?

People tend to act like it is a given that a stricter penalty decreases the occurrence of the crime, but that isn't always the case.

cellis• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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 for more on what this looks like.)

newfriend• 7 years ago

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.

ram_rar3• 7 years ago

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.

free6524• 7 years ago

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

ram_rar3• 7 years ago

Could you elaborate ?

addicted3• 7 years ago

It is largely treated as a minor ticket in NYC as well I believe.

ummonk2• 7 years ago

This wasn't a case of not having a valid ticket. This was a case of turnstile jumping. There is a big difference in intent there.

fredophile3• 7 years ago

Could you please explain the difference in intent? Sounds to me like its someone trying to ride for free in both cases.

dls20165• 7 years ago

NYPD has a long history of implementing the "broken windows" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_York...

ram_rar3• 7 years ago

why not fine the person ? Like parking tickets. Jailing someone for something as minor as this is beyond stupid.

jrockway• 7 years ago

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?

umeshunni• 7 years ago

Given that 40% of the budget for the typical subway comes from fares, that sounds unviable http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/MTA-2018-AdoptedBudgetFeb...

marcosdumay2• 7 years ago

The local population finance 100% of the costs one way or the other. Why taking the same money by one route is perfectly normal while the same amount from another route not viable?

fredophile3• 7 years ago

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.

yellowapple• 7 years ago

How about some kind of RFID card (like the Clipper Card system in the SF Bay Area), but with all payments waived if you have proof of residency in the cit(y|ies) served?

scottlamb• 7 years ago

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...

sureaboutthis• 7 years ago

The ride is a fixed cost to some extent no matter how many people ride the train. The system gets $2.75 times the thousands that ride that one train. So it's $2.75 times many thousands and not just $2.75.

onetimemanytime• 7 years ago

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

misiti3780• 7 years ago

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

NarcolepticFrog• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

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.

marcosdumay2• 7 years ago

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.

smogcutter• 7 years ago

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

ChrisGranger• 7 years ago

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.

DoreenMichele2• 7 years ago

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.

dls20165• 7 years ago

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!

bargl3• 7 years ago

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.

imjustsaying2• 7 years ago

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

DoreenMichele2• 7 years ago

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.

imjustsaying2• 7 years ago

thanks.

mnm1• 7 years ago

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.

RickJWagner• 7 years ago

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.)

RenRav• 7 years ago

$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• 7 years ago

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.

60 days in jail for not paying a $2.75 subway fare costs the city $22,000

Related Stories