Skip to content


This is an interesting story:

I recall it coming up in the summer. I find it interesting in its resolution rather than in any other respect. I'm not sure I can easily get behind a reduction in criminal sanction arising directly from a financial payment to a law enforcement body.


  • Depends on whether it should be a criminal offence in the first place. Not that dissimilar to decriminalisation of parking offences. Unless you fear the charges are likely to be spurious and revenue generating.

  • I'm not sure it does depend on that. Given that they've decided the behaviour is worthy of criminal sanction, I was questioning whether that could be ignored or downgraded by the willingness, or ability, to pay money to the police.

  • I understand, but not going to lose sleep over it. Do you think that similar monetary payments might be made to reduce bans from football grounds?!

  • Likewise, it won't keep me awake tonight - my stinking headache should take care of that. But I thought it interesting enough as an ethical matter to raise it for discussion.

    Perhaps a rising scale of charges for different words and incendiary devices...

  • If you read this as admitting to a number of lesser charges, one for each event, which each carried a fine rather than contesting the misdemeanour charges then its no different to what goes on in the UK system all the time.
    I confess that the wording is that the money is indeed paid to the police to reduce the charge and then it looks like quite odd.
    However, I'm no expert in US law.

Sign In or Register to comment.