I don't necessarily see the paractice being stricken as unconstitutional, but it's not good policy for two reasons: it too broadly removes discretion from the sentencing court, and it provides an unnecessary hurle for district attorneys and defendants to resolve cases through plea agreements.

I disagree with Napper on two points that are untrue. He states that the purpose of the high, uniform fine is to make defendants pay the prosecution costs. However, litigation costs are ordered separately in every jurisdiction, in which I am aware, and such costs need to be itemized. Moreover, as stated in the response, costs of litigation often vary from case to case.

Napper claims that a $750 fine treats everybody the same. That's laughable.

In PA there is a standard charge only for the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program, which is for first time misdemeanor offenders, who can have the charge expunged without ever having to face a conviction. However, the indigent are given special payment plans and some assistance as the whole point is to allow people to complete the program. Their partial payments often constitute a greater financial burden than the payment of full of wealthier DUI or theft defendants.