nfitz
Superstar
I'd hope defecating is also a criminal offence; but I've never observed that on TTC, or needed to check the law!
|
|
|
TTC: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
urbanclient
Active Member
I would argue that the homeless should not get a fine. It's often infeasible to enforce a fine, much less community service on a homeless person. These are not criminal offences. They also don't have much money to spare to begin with. Especially given that fines here are not income-based, everyone is fined the same amount.
It is legally impossible to be jailed for a Part I Offence, which are minor offences e.g. fare evasion. A provincial offence =/= a federal criminal offence. Part I Offences also cannot lead to compulsory community service. And for good reason. Community service for minor, non-criminal offences would be incredibly unpopular as for many people, the loss of working day(s) would be more costly than a fine.
More to the point, why do people think you'll be under the iron boot of the state when you get a ticket as a lower-income person? Fines are always reduced due to financial hardship, and they often don't verify income. You just show up to an early resolution meeting, default is over the phone or virtual, but you can choose to go in-person; they knock down the fine by 50% at least. In my experience, you don't even have to say you can't afford it, simply asking for a fine reduction is enough. Have y'all never gotten a provincial ticket before? This applies to traffic and red light tickets as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askTO/comments/1hqkuvo/advice_needed_ttc_fine/
Last edited:
Chris R.
Senior Member
My intention for "fine" was not a financial fine, apologies for the miscommunication. It was meant as a community service.
In regards to your comment about community service. Many places use this. That's why the penalty is a fine OR community service.
Your comment seems to be suggesting no fine should be levied because some people can't afford it, and community service shouldn't be used because some people can't afford it. This is a pretty weak argument for skipping penalties altogether.
$75 fine, (even offer to allow it to be paid in instalments) or community service I think is an acceptable fine for not paying for transit. It's a pretty minor penalty. Or I suppose we could continue to simply not enforce rules, and allow 5% of the population ruin everything for the other 95%? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
81-717
Active Member
urbanclient
Active Member
I am unaware of how community service would be implemented for (homeless) fare evaders. When John Smith doesn't pay their fine, does it default to community service? Do we then dispatch provincial offence officers or Toronto police to track down Mr. Smith?
My point is that there is no point in fining a homeless person, it's a waste of paper and the officer's time. And the POOs understand this.
I also do not want someone falling on hard times to have their money or time wasted by a fare evasion ticket. Especially on the odd chance they were using transit to legitimately travel and not sleeping on multiple seats while soiling themselves.
The most feasible thing to do is for police to remove poorly behaving people from the premises, homeless or not. I've previously advocated for dedicated transit police as is the case in Vancouver and Washington DC. For the general population, I am all for enforcement with fare checks and fines, given that they can be lowered in cases of financial hardship.
The Chinese model is security at every metro station. Given how legally feckless security guards and non-police are in Canada, I doubt that would be effective or affordable here.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm essentially in agreement.
Though, I would add, what we need to say here is that homelessness, and untreated, severe mental illness and/or addiction are unacceptable states.
We haven't empowered staff or police, expressly to address this.
A portion of this, is absolutely the absence of sufficient affordable housing and entry-level wages and benefits that are too low.
However, we do have to concede, I think, that a portion of the issue stems from allowing people to decline help, or housing, often while in a state of psychosis or intoxication or withdrawal and then either allowing them to remain on the street or turning them back out to same, as if the problem won't endlessly repeat to everyone's detriment, often prematurely taking the life of the afflicted individual.
I accept people's right of medical self-determination, if they are sober and sane at the time, and if they are able to demonstrate self-support in whatever fashion and an ability do no harm to others.
We need to presume that sleeping outside, or on transit is generally a form of self-affliction and often a harm to others, and not reasonable.
I don't want fines, or jail, I want compulsory treatment, on an in-patient basis, as required. If not required or after said treatment, I want someone offered a fixed address, a private, studio or 1 bedroom apartment and sufficient benefits on which to live, pending employment, where feasible.
I think we should be wary of abuse of power, and ignoring people's autonomy, but we can't allow concern for that to excuse what is often de facto suicide in slow motion, which is evidently self-harming and which in the process, often pains others.
All of the above needs to be differentiated from general law breaking by citizens otherwise capable of obeying the law.
Last edited:
CMQSD402F9011
New Member
For those who probably do urban exploration and see abandoned houses with electricity still on. Wouldn’t Toronto hydro or Hydro one have the power to fine people who don’t pay their electricity bills? TTC might be lacking an operating subsidy from the province. Unless Ford gets voted out, whoever becomes the new premier, must undo allot of damages on what Ford has done.