Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
540 messages, Last post on Sep 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:26 pm) All that aside, the point is that camera tickets effectively force the driver into a situation in which he is guilty until proven innocent. The defendant is forced to prove that he isn't the driver, while other criminal charges force the prosecution to offer the burden of proof. That doesn't exactly jive with the spirit or the letter of the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:29 pm) Last time I checked, you had the right to face your accuser and the right not to self-incriminate. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:29 pm) Ah, that's the disconnect. I'm not saying they are always wrong. This started when you made the comment that they only catch those that do something wrong. That just isn't true. Proof: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3476004 |
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:34 pm) Unfortunately, the creation of the infraction system really got the ball rolling in favor of these revenue-oriented statutes. Let's suppose that we decide that red light running is a serious offense, and that it merits a high fine (i.e. $350, which is close to what you'll pay in California.) If you're interested in justice, then it would be desirable to put a check-and-balance in the system by making sure that prosecuting these cases is costly enough that the state earns no profit from doing it. That way, the fine fits the crime, but the government doesn't have an incentive to hand out more fines. In my mind, that means eliminating the infraction system, and restoring the right to counsel and a jury trial as was previously allowed. If the state had to pay for your lawyer and had to organize a jury (even a mini jury of 6, rather than 12) for every defendant, then you could charge these types of fines while feeling assured that the enforcement was not motivated by a desire for profit. There is not much of a profit motive for prosecuting murderers, but shortening amber light timings to earn more ticket money holds a lot more appeal. As it stands now, the state makes a lot of money from these tickets, which taints its motives. And if you allow your rights to be eroded so easily at this level, it just lays the groundwork for a long slide downward in other areas as well. Ignoring rights in the name of safety or any other dogma is what tyrants do, not what a free people demand. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:32 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:34 pm) And thats why you have a court date, so you can face your accuser. You still have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to say "Yes I broke the law and ran a red light". |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:46 pm) That's not quite right. Again, in other criminal cases, if the prosecution can't provide evidence that the defendant is the offender, then the case will be tossed. With a camera ticket, the identification is presumed unless the defendant refutes it. Here, the defendant has a greater burden than does the prosecution, a complete contradiction of the constitution that imposes this obligation on the prosecutor. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:44 pm) You're missing the point. It's not a ticket, it's a sheet that you do not have to legally respond to. Like was said before you are now presumed guilty if you do not respond. If a real police officer was there, they wouldn't be issuing a ticket to the owner of the car, but the person actually committing the infraction! The point is that the ticket belongs with the person who committed the crime, not the owner of the vehicle that the crime was committed with. |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 10, 2006 12:46 pm) You haven't looked into this much, have you? They don't assign a court date, they send out a notice asking you to snitch on who did it. If you don't in 30 days, they send out a process server. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: redmaxx (Jul 10, 2006 12:51 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
