[throw310822]

> Those who can afford the $50 fine (which, knowing CA, is a big part of the population)

That's why fines should always be proportional to income. They are not the price of a product, they are the price that should make a behaviour equally unaffordable for everyone.

[Scoundreller]

I’d like to add a vehicle weight co-factor to the fines.

[Jiro]

By that reasoning, if you don't have a job, so being put in jail won't make you lose your job, you should be jailed longer to make up for the fact that jail harms you less. Likewise if you don't have children.

[throw310822]

The objection that perfecting something beyond what's practical would be unfeasible is not a good one against making it better within reasonable limits, right?

It's very difficult to quantify the harm that jail does to you. It depends on a lot of factors, some of which are entirely personal, and besides, jail has multiple functions (in short: dissuasion, retribution, prevention and re-education). A fine exists mostly for dissuasion, and has a very precise economical value that is easy to gauge on the income/ wealth of the person fined.

[badlucklottery]

> if you don't have a job, so being put in jail won't make you lose your job, you should be jailed longer to make up for the fact that jail harms you less.

I know you were being facetious but, due to how the US legal system works, if you don't have a job/income, you likely have worse legal representation, which means you get a worse plea deal, and do go to jail longer.

And having children/family to care for usually does affect sentencing.

So you inadvertently described the current system in the US.

[phil21]

This is precisely how it works in the US when it comes to most low level sentences.

Impact on career and family (kids, mostly) is a major consideration when it comes to sentencing. For better or worse.