Fees for Pees

[Brutus 2,206]

Okay, disregard any current laws that exist and say you don't have a pee fetish. You are an elected official and there is a piss epidemic in your state/province/territory. People are just pissing on property nearly everywhere you go, indoors and outdoors, everything is getting pissed on. The people demand you take action and address this piss madness with a law that deals proper punishments. What do you propose?

 

I would propose:

1. peeing on property outdoors, misdemeanor offense of outdoor vandalism by bodily fluid, $250 fine. (U.S. currency. Convert to whatever currency you live by.)

2. Peeing on property outdoors on items expected to be consumed, such as someones garden, $500 fine, followed by being tested for diseases. If found to have any short term curable diseases in your blood, the fine doubles to $1000. If it is a non curable, such as Herpes or HIV, the charge expands to felony vandalism by bodily fluid and 3 years prison, or 2 years prison and $5,000 fine, or 1 year and $10,000 fine to property owner. This fine can be spread across up to 4 years, with interest. Any payment late by 6 months, off to prison to serve  chosen sentence, minus the amount of time you made timely payments.

3. Peeing indoors is identical to item 2, now including personal care items, but sentences and fines doubled for the additional effort needed to clean waste indoors, as well as the increased intimacy of an indoor violation.

4. Your knowledge of your disease status is irrelevant. 

5. Impaired judgement due to drugs is irrelevant.

6. With regard to a mentally or urinary impaired offender, judgement will be made on case-by-case basis, dependent upon severity of impairment.

7. Punishments increase by 50 percent for each successive offense.

 

Agree? Disagree? Ideas?

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Brutus

[glad1 2,832]

I'd make sure that elected official would get swiftly imPEEched! 😝

[spywareonya 37,961]

@Brutus

 

I would completely legalize public pee that is done by somebody looking for shelter, and fine brazen public piss by 50$. but no criminal record 

if conducted with underage people looking, or with clear bothering attitude, I'd skip "pee" and directly label it sexual harassment, with any laws of countries each on their own

If pee is on private stuff, 50$ plus the value of the object to the damaged person, 200$ if it cannot be determined like peeing in a garden

For the diseases, I agree with you, but maybe even harsher

no increase for successive offenses

 

payment increased by 5 times if not paid on the spot

This will incredibly decrease law-related stuff with courts and advocates etc

Everybody would pay without discussing

 

 

[WantonLee 861]

I have no straight answer, other then I think spywhereonya's suggestion is mostly spot-on (although I disagree about the "payment increased by 5 times if not payed on the spot", as I feel this rule would favor only the rich people.... again).

I do have a question though: how did this kind of epidemic happen in the first place? Is there a specific group of culprits?

I know this is purely hypothetical, but my brain tends to come up with this kind of questions... . 😉

[spywareonya 37,961]

5 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

epidemic

???

 

5 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

as I feel this rule would favor only the rich people.... again

Quite the opposite, it was a way to completely bypass courts and registers as it is not considered a crime but only a sanctioned indecency

If you KNOW you WANNA piss in public (no fines if you hide!) then take 50$ ready with you and that's all, it's more a price than a fine, since it's utterly voluntary (again, if you hide there's no fine)

 

 

8 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

my brain tends to come up with this kind of questions

no problems with that, but I really failed to understand the question!!!

[WantonLee 861]

I am refering to the piss-epidemic

21 hours ago, Brutus said:

 You are an elected official and there is a piss epidemic in your state/province/territory.

Thats what I was refering to. Mabye "epidimic" has a different meaning as the German "Epidemie", which means a wide spreading illness of sort.... ?

I was just wondering how this hypothetical  "epidemic" started out, and who are the main culprits (i.e., is there a specific group of people that do it) - and see if this could be used to counter-act the epidimic. Weed out the evil at the roots, you know?

 

I still think quintupling the fine if you can't pay it on the spot is unfair towards less wealthy persons - someone poor will most likely not have that much money with them, and if s/he has to go to court for it, it will get expensive, anyway.

What would be fair? If you would have to pay a certain PERCENTAGE of your income (or assets, if you make your money by interest), instead of a fixed value.

In one of the scandinavian countries, I forgot which one, they allready do this for certain traffic-fines (speeding, iirc).

[spywareonya 37,961]

@WantonLee holy shit I missed it!

 

Ahahahaha in english and american epidemic means also something spreading terribly wide and terribly fast

9 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

What would be fair? If you would have to pay a certain PERCENTAGE of your income (or assets, if you make your money by interest), instead of a fixed value.

It's inherently a contradiction of the very meaning of money: money are nothing, pieces of metal or paper

They are a CONTRACT and are thus meant to be used to create disparity, this is willing and keeps the world spinning, though we exaggerated the difference between riches and poors

If you wanna pay ZERO DOLLARS simply hide to pee, no fines for you. 50$, hightened to 250$ if you don't pay on the spot, are for those people who wanna piss in front of anybody because they chose to!

Anyway, if you want, just delete that, it was thought by me on a wider-scale, to push people to pay on the spot and avoid work for lawers

I am afraid I did not explained myself good enough: 50$ is only if you chose to piss in front of everybody because you find it erotic. If you hide to pee then is law-abiding utterly. You must be reported because somebody was offended by you in order to be fined: if you were trying to hide, officers would answer the complaining ones "fuck off". But if the story includes you pissing on a boardwalk in full daylight among people and somebody reports you, then 50$. Hightening the fine for those who pay later is indeed a way to spil money from the riches, NOT to help them. A rich could pay via webcard or postbanks weeks later, but the State will be richer and the rich, poorer. A less rich person will pay 50$ on the spot. If you plan to pee in public bring them with you. If you don't plan to lose them due to a fine, just hide when you pee.

[Brutus 2,206]

19 hours ago, WantonLee said:

I am refering to the piss-epidemic

Thats what I was refering to. Mabye "epidimic" has a different meaning as the German "Epidemie", which means a wide spreading illness of sort.... ?

I was just wondering how this hypothetical  "epidemic" started out, and who are the main culprits (i.e., is there a specific group of people that do it) - and see if this could be used to counter-act the epidimic. Weed out the evil at the roots, you know?

 

I still think quintupling the fine if you can't pay it on the spot is unfair towards less wealthy persons - someone poor will most likely not have that much money with them, and if s/he has to go to court for it, it will get expensive, anyway.

What would be fair? If you would have to pay a certain PERCENTAGE of your income (or assets, if you make your money by interest), instead of a fixed value.

In one of the scandinavian countries, I forgot which one, they allready do this for certain traffic-fines (speeding, iirc).

Okay, epidemic simply meaning an out of control frequency of occurrences. Illness is not applied here.

There is no specific group of culprits. The high number of pee vandalism is a result of no law to address it, therefore the citizens, all walks of life, pee wherever they feel the urge pretty much and it is causing damage to property and is a hygiene and grossness issue. Think of it like littering that never gets punished.

Unfairness toward those with less money is considered irrelevant and not an excuse to escape punishment. A murder is punished equally regardless of wealth and the same standard applies here. Plus the fees are mostly meant to serve as a deterrent to stop the epidemic, and percentages of ones income may be so little for some offenders that it would serve no compensation to the victim, who may also be poor and have trouble replacing ruined items. As said, payments can be arranged, or jail. If the poor dont want the fine, more incentive to not pee on property. Now thinking more, it could be not enough to stop wealthy people from offending, but given that they are usually a small percentage of society, it may not be an issue. If the wealthy are still doing it to a problematic degree because the fee doesnt bother them, it could be jail regardless after say the third offense, or fine transferred to percentage of income above poverty line perhaps. But again, the wealthy are a very small portion in most societies, so it likely wouldn't need adjusted for their offense frequency.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Brutus

[spywareonya 37,961]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 7:18 PM, Brutus said:

Okay, epidemic simply meaning an out of control frequency of occurrences. Illness is not applied here.

There is no specific group of culprits. The high number of pee vandalism is a result of no law to address it, therefore the citizens, all walks of life, pee wherever they feel the urge pretty much and it is causing damage to property and is a hygiene and grossness issue. Think of it like littering that never gets punished.

Unfairness toward those with less money is considered irrelevant and not an excuse to escape punishment. A murder is punished equally regardless of wealth and the same standard applies here. Plus the fees are mostly meant to serve as a deterrent to stop the epidemic, and percentages of ones income may be so little for some offenders that it would serve no compensation to the victim, who may also be poor and have trouble replacing ruined items. As said, payments can be arranged, or jail. If the poor dont want the fine, more incentive to not pee on property. Now thinking more, it could be not enough to stop wealthy people from offending, but given that they are usually a small percentage of society, it may not be an issue. If the wealthy are still doing it to a problematic degree because the fee doesnt bother them, it could be jail regardless after say the third offense, or fine transferred to percentage of income above poverty line perhaps. But again, the wealthy are a very small portion in most societies, so it likely wouldn't need adjusted for their offense frequency.

I am starting to miss the point

You are looking for a deterrent from public debaucherie, or are we trying to find a way to stop exceeding public piss while still protecting the interests of us fetishists?

because if the point is stopping public piss, in my country there are up to 30 000$ dollars fines and up to 4 years of jail

WE still do in rural areas (and I still do also among town) but this indeed stopped many from daring

 

BUT this is NOT what is right

right is that we re-take this world which is our, and laws should just stop criminals, NOT us explorers of forbidden pleasures

[Brutus 2,206]

On 9/2/2018 at 10:34 AM, spywareonya said:

I am starting to miss the point

You are looking for a deterrent from public debaucherie, or are we trying to find a way to stop exceeding public piss while still protecting the interests of us fetishists?

because if the point is stopping public piss, in my country there are up to 30 000$ dollars fines and up to 4 years of jail

WE still do in rural areas (and I still do also among town) but this indeed stopped many from daring

 

BUT this is NOT what is right

right is that we re-take this world which is our, and laws should just stop criminals, NOT us explorers of forbidden pleasures

This is hypothetical scenario in which peoples' property is being damaged as a result of an exceeding amount of indecent pee offenses, which in this case supersedes fetishists. We're not talking peeing on the highway or in an alley, but inside public transit, in/on peoples vehicles, gardens, porches, business premises, inside on floors and such, causing a civil unrest issue because no law currently exists to address it. Imagine for example going into a bank and stepping in a puddle of piss, or getting in a cab and the seat is soaked. Restaurant floors reeking of dried piss while you eat. Addressing a serious civil unrest issue is what I envisioned.

Apologies. I never expected to come across so confusing, and get this deep into defending the ideas put forth. It was only supposed to be a light hearted fun topic. But since this has sort of gone off the rails, maybe it's a good idea to just leave it behind at this point.🙂

[spywareonya 37,961]

5 minutes ago, Brutus said:

leave it behind

No way, it's fascinating!!!

 

I understand… well. my idea stands

50$ if you are brazen

no fees if you hide

if you damage something, 50$ PLUS give the owner the value of the damaged object, 200$ standard if it cannot be properly decided

no increments for following offenses

if you actually bother people then charge for sexual harassment

health-check and willing disaster charge if secretely ill

[Brutus 2,206]

3 hours ago, spywareonya said:

No way, it's fascinating!!!

 

I understand… well. my idea stands

50$ if you are brazen

no fees if you hide

if you damage something, 50$ PLUS give the owner the value of the damaged object, 200$ standard if it cannot be properly decided

no increments for following offenses

if you actually bother people then charge for sexual harassment

health-check and willing disaster charge if secretely ill

You know, I actually like those ideas, especially the sexual harassment charge!

[spywareonya 37,961]

4 minutes ago, Brutus said:

You know, I actually like those ideas, especially the sexual harassment charge!

it's realistic