Another one: Any time an agency of the government collects a fine to deter bad behavior, the money must be given to another agency that is significantly removed from the decision making process that sets the fine, or to charity. Likewise for seized goods, etc. If the county police department starts writing more tickets for rolling stops, the money just ends up with the parks department. (Obviously it is possible in principle for different agencies to collude, but the same can be said about all checks and balances. The point is to make coordinating the collusion difficult/dangerous.)<p>People can complain all they want about individual instances of civil forfeiture or predatory red-light cameras, but those sorts of issues are all caused by the incentives induced when the agency that enacts the fine benefits from the money collected.<p>(This does not apply to the separate penalties/restitution used to compensate victims, pay for fixing actual damage, etc..)<p>If some agencies are currently dependent on revenue through fines, then this requires a one-time adjustment to their budget. But this is good as it just means that the cost of running their agencies becomes more transparent.