I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial(thepublicdiscourse.com)
thepublicdiscourse.com
I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/
480 comments
One more thing (since I might have the attention of a windmill-tilting pro-bono lawyer): I donated the car in question to KDFC. The SF red light proceedure for people in my situation has the accused track down the current owner of the car (which is not necessarily the person it was first transferred to), which means I needed to get in touch with an out of state auction house that sells the cars for the radio station.
This happens all the time, and the radio station has a department to deal with these issues. If you call the car donations hotline, and ask for the red light ticket helpdesk, you will be transferred to someone that might be able to help bootstrap a class action suit. I suspect this situation is the same in most states.
This happens all the time, and the radio station has a department to deal with these issues. If you call the car donations hotline, and ask for the red light ticket helpdesk, you will be transferred to someone that might be able to help bootstrap a class action suit. I suspect this situation is the same in most states.
For other Californians selling or donating cars, a crucial step is to complete a "Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability" form. details at:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/vr_info#BM2520
but the key language is:
> Protect Your Liability. Complete a Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability. The seller is responsible for reporting the change of ownership to DMV within 5 days from the date of sale. After DMV updates the information from the Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability, you will be cleared from future liability on the vehicle. The purchaser is responsible for reporting the change of ownership to DMV within 10 days from the date of purchase.
Being liable for a traffic ticket is one thing, but imagine being thought liable for a hit and run collision.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/vr_info#BM2520
but the key language is:
> Protect Your Liability. Complete a Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability. The seller is responsible for reporting the change of ownership to DMV within 5 days from the date of sale. After DMV updates the information from the Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability, you will be cleared from future liability on the vehicle. The purchaser is responsible for reporting the change of ownership to DMV within 10 days from the date of purchase.
Being liable for a traffic ticket is one thing, but imagine being thought liable for a hit and run collision.
Here is some of the documentation from the SF court:
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/traffic/red-light
(There are more, contradictory instructions that they mail out with the ticket)
Their database of car registrations is not regularly synced with the DMV, so they routinely send citations to people that do not own the car in question.
There is no process for "the bureaucracy screwed up", so they won't accept a copy of the liability transfer reciept as proof you are no longer liable (nor will they simply contact the DMV).
Of course, since you have no idea what the new owner is up to, you can't provide the information required to contest the ticket.
At this point, things get progressively more bizarre.
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/traffic/red-light
(There are more, contradictory instructions that they mail out with the ticket)
Their database of car registrations is not regularly synced with the DMV, so they routinely send citations to people that do not own the car in question.
There is no process for "the bureaucracy screwed up", so they won't accept a copy of the liability transfer reciept as proof you are no longer liable (nor will they simply contact the DMV).
Of course, since you have no idea what the new owner is up to, you can't provide the information required to contest the ticket.
At this point, things get progressively more bizarre.
> There is no process for "the bureaucracy screwed up
There certainly is, whether or not SF County actively provides it to you.
In any case, the state does provide it.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/8452.htm
There certainly is, whether or not SF County actively provides it to you.
In any case, the state does provide it.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/8452.htm
Turn it on them and declare it was stolen. Either they accept the transfer or you are legally the owner and declare it stolen. Go to the police and report the car stolen. That would create such a cluster$uck for them maybe they'd be more inclined to work with you.
> Turn it on them and declare it was stolen.
So, you'll be guilty of perjury with clear documentary evidence, but get out of the traffic infraction. Likely pyrrhic victory, there.
So, you'll be guilty of perjury with clear documentary evidence, but get out of the traffic infraction. Likely pyrrhic victory, there.
This is a giant scam to screw the public out of more money. Call your congressperson, make a petition, make a big deal publicly out of it, go to the press, dig up as much dirt as you can; if the people don't make the authorities do their job right, they'll continue to use us as exploitation resources.
What part of this designed to increase income, in your opinion? It seems to me that revenue remains constant whether they fine the previous owner or the new one.
> What part of this designed to increase income, in your opinion?
Not making the information on general contests (rather than a few narrow cases) readily available makes it more likely that people that rely on only the county site for information won't contest tickets (thinking that there is no procedure available for their circumstance), which reduces costs associated with contested tickets.
Not making the information on general contests (rather than a few narrow cases) readily available makes it more likely that people that rely on only the county site for information won't contest tickets (thinking that there is no procedure available for their circumstance), which reduces costs associated with contested tickets.
Taking the path of least resistance of course, it is easier to extort the person on their file than getting out of their way to find the real culprit.
Definitely do that. Just don't be surprised when the courts don't honor it. The paperwork was correct for me (and I can prove it), but that wasn't enough to "clear me from future liability".
I traded my car in, and one of the forms they had me sign was this. 6 months later I got a call from the DMV saying my insurance lapsed. I told them as much and they said that it's a common tactic by dealerships - they have you sign it then never send it in, because they don't want to be liable for the car even though they own it. Totally scummy.
You should submit the form online. It takes less than 5 minutes.
>The seller is responsible for reporting the change of ownership to DMV within 5 days from the date of sale
And if you sell your car to a dealership (i.e., give it away for pennies because you don't want it anymore) and they say they will do this step for you, assume they are full of shit.
I sold my old Toyota to DGDG in San Jose. I specifically asked them about this step (having experience with the equally kafkaesque Texas Toll Systems) and they told me they'd take care of it for me. Sweet.
Six months later I'm getting letters about toll violations. I dispute them with proof, dismissed. I did this five times for various toll violations until finally I bugged the dealership enough for them to get around to fixing it. But their first response was: "Don't worry about it, if they come in the mail, just ignore them." Uh..
And if you sell your car to a dealership (i.e., give it away for pennies because you don't want it anymore) and they say they will do this step for you, assume they are full of shit.
I sold my old Toyota to DGDG in San Jose. I specifically asked them about this step (having experience with the equally kafkaesque Texas Toll Systems) and they told me they'd take care of it for me. Sweet.
Six months later I'm getting letters about toll violations. I dispute them with proof, dismissed. I did this five times for various toll violations until finally I bugged the dealership enough for them to get around to fixing it. But their first response was: "Don't worry about it, if they come in the mail, just ignore them." Uh..
Don't ignore them! That waves your right to contest the tickets!
So the fact that you no longer own the car is not enough to release you from liability from it? Typical "may cause cancer in the state of California" style regulations. Glad I don't live there anymore
Where do you live that you don't have to notify the DMV of a title transfer in order to be released from liability? When I sold my Dad's car in South Carolina, I had to collect the license plates (called "tags" there) and physically return them to the DMV with the required paperwork.
Pretty much anywhere with a sensible idea of what liability means. When the car is gone, you're not liable for it.
This year a car I used to drive was involved in a serious accident. I sold the car 7 years ago, the owner was just driving it illegally without registration. A few minutes on the phone with the police officer and it was cleared up.
This year a car I used to drive was involved in a serious accident. I sold the car 7 years ago, the owner was just driving it illegally without registration. A few minutes on the phone with the police officer and it was cleared up.
so far I can't find a single state where you don't have to notify the DMV of a title transfer. I don't agree that this is some crazy "only in California" type of deal.
I don't know about cars, but I had this happen with a boat that I sold in Florida. The buyer is supposed to register the boat. The registration sticker did not expire for another year. So, they didn't bother to pay the fees.
When I went to the DMV a few months later to renew a car registration, they thought that I still owned the boat. They said it happens all the time. I had the bill of sale to sort things out.
When I went to the DMV a few months later to renew a car registration, they thought that I still owned the boat. They said it happens all the time. I had the bill of sale to sort things out.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be in Virginia that it was the buyer's responsibility to notify the DMV; the seller signed and handed over the title; if the buyer never registered the car it would be completely possible for the DMV to not have record of the transfer in that case.
While not required, the seller can also mail back their registration with a notice of sale (there is a small form on the back of the registration card, if I remember correctly).
Looks like Virginia is currently one of those states where you have to turn in the license plates -- so how would the camera ticket get to you? https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#selling.asp
In California, the plates stay with the car (unless they are vanity or you are attached to your plate number)
In California, the plates stay with the car (unless they are vanity or you are attached to your plate number)
I never said it was "crazy", you inferred that yourself.
In Texas in the late 90's my father sold a car which was involved in a hit and run the very next day. Luckily a simple bill of sale was enough to keep him out of trouble.
> Being liable for a traffic ticket is one thing, but imagine being thought liable for a hit and run collision.
Why would car ownership be anything but a very weak piece of evidence in such a case?
Why would car ownership be anything but a very weak piece of evidence in such a case?
I would hope.
This was wayyyy before red light/speeding cameras existed - I was 17 under mom's insurance. Car insurance calls mom saying my car was involved in a hit-and-run, a bystander took down the license plate of the hit and run car, my license plate. This hit and run also happened in the town I lived in. Totally plausible and even provable it was me, or at least someone driving my car.
My car, however, at that time was about 250 miles away... Being towed, as the shitbox I drove broke down, again. I had the tow truck receipt to prove it.
I honestly don't know what ended up happening, as at 17 I wasn't handling this kinda stuff. I guess the tow receipts proved it wasn't me. Or maybe it was a different make/model/color than what was registered with the DMV. Anyways, I never heard about it again. Of course, nobody went after me for a crime, it was the insurance who cared in this case, not the police. I don't know how long this took to resolved or how much of a pain of the ass it was to deal with.
I just find it very frightening that, when you looked at it from afar, it seemed so obvious that it was me even though I was totally innocent.
This was wayyyy before red light/speeding cameras existed - I was 17 under mom's insurance. Car insurance calls mom saying my car was involved in a hit-and-run, a bystander took down the license plate of the hit and run car, my license plate. This hit and run also happened in the town I lived in. Totally plausible and even provable it was me, or at least someone driving my car.
My car, however, at that time was about 250 miles away... Being towed, as the shitbox I drove broke down, again. I had the tow truck receipt to prove it.
I honestly don't know what ended up happening, as at 17 I wasn't handling this kinda stuff. I guess the tow receipts proved it wasn't me. Or maybe it was a different make/model/color than what was registered with the DMV. Anyways, I never heard about it again. Of course, nobody went after me for a crime, it was the insurance who cared in this case, not the police. I don't know how long this took to resolved or how much of a pain of the ass it was to deal with.
I just find it very frightening that, when you looked at it from afar, it seemed so obvious that it was me even though I was totally innocent.
In a case of mistaken car identity (as opposed to correct car, but incorrect driver), there are even better sources of evidence: hitting someone usually leaves traces on the car (bent buffer or hood).
Years ago when red light cameras were new I remember hearing a comedian say "The city sent me a photo of my car running a red light and a ticket for $100. So, I took a photo of $100 and sent that back to them with the ticket".
That's completely silly but it sounds like it was just as effective as your efforts so far. Hope you get it sorted some day.
That's completely silly but it sounds like it was just as effective as your efforts so far. Hope you get it sorted some day.
I remember the story ending with "they sent back a picture of handcuffs, and so I sent the actual money"
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7HYmvc9AlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7HYmvc9AlY
Help a confused european: do you guys not have a car registration system, wherein when you sell a car the buyer has to go and register himself as the new owner before he gets registration plates and can drive the car?
How could the city not know who the owner of the car is?
Over here photo tickets follow a simple rule: if it's your car, it's your responsibility to know who's driving it. When you get a ticket, you either name the driver, or you pay it yourself. But I haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket for someone else's car.
How could the city not know who the owner of the car is?
Over here photo tickets follow a simple rule: if it's your car, it's your responsibility to know who's driving it. When you get a ticket, you either name the driver, or you pay it yourself. But I haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket for someone else's car.
> How could the city not know who the owner of the car is?
Because frankly the city doesn't care about change of ownership. Many cities (probably most in California, and SF for sure) are totally disconnected from helping citizens. They really neither interested, nor in business of helping you out. They BELIEVE you did something wrong and that's enough. Most of the time they are right and that's enough of a fuel for a SF budget committee not to allocate budget to helping few citizens out of majority to "make it right" for them.
An interesting story from an App that made it simple to fight wrong tickets. Who would have thought that SF would give you wrong ticket or that they would be in wrong generally? You not supposed to be well-informed either. At the end, they got frustrated by all people who lawfully and willingly were submitting claims via Fax and just simply... unplug their fax machine!
When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes-y...
Because frankly the city doesn't care about change of ownership. Many cities (probably most in California, and SF for sure) are totally disconnected from helping citizens. They really neither interested, nor in business of helping you out. They BELIEVE you did something wrong and that's enough. Most of the time they are right and that's enough of a fuel for a SF budget committee not to allocate budget to helping few citizens out of majority to "make it right" for them.
An interesting story from an App that made it simple to fight wrong tickets. Who would have thought that SF would give you wrong ticket or that they would be in wrong generally? You not supposed to be well-informed either. At the end, they got frustrated by all people who lawfully and willingly were submitting claims via Fax and just simply... unplug their fax machine!
When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes-y...
>Because frankly the city doesn't care about change of ownership. Many cities (probably most in California, and SF for sure) are totally disconnected from helping citizens.
Eh, Boston isn't in California but from what I gather most of the populace has contracted whatever California has so it may as well be.
Eh, Boston isn't in California but from what I gather most of the populace has contracted whatever California has so it may as well be.
Wow! Can we at least have an app that pays the fine using pennies?
There are two parts to it. The seller notifies the state that they have sold the car, and the buyer has to register with the state that they bought the car. Taxes are due when the buyer registers with the state, so guess which part doesn't get done as often?
If the seller forgets to send in the sell notification and the buyer flakes out on registering the only person they know to pursue is the seller. Hopefully the seller has a signed bill of sale so they can point the finger further down the ownership chain.
If the seller forgets to send in the sell notification and the buyer flakes out on registering the only person they know to pursue is the seller. Hopefully the seller has a signed bill of sale so they can point the finger further down the ownership chain.
All of that assume there are plates on the car. If the seller left his plates on the car, well, that was a mistake. If you sell a car private-party, you should take the plates off. It's on the buyer to ensure the car is properly tagged. Most states off short-term tags for just this reason (transporting newly purchased cars that haven't had registration updated).
>If the seller left his plates on the car, well, that was a mistake.
That's not always the case. In some states the plates are "owned" by the vehicle, not a person and are transferred with the vehicle on sale.
That's not always the case. In some states the plates are "owned" by the vehicle, not a person and are transferred with the vehicle on sale.
In California the plates stay with the car, not the owner. Other states are different.
I did not know that. That seems like a terrible idea for exactly the reason we're discussing this. Does CA have a web site available where a seller can relinquish ownership? If not, it seems the time between the actual sale and one or other of the seller or buyer going to the DMV would have the car in legal limbo wrt ownership.
It is indeed a terrible idea to have thhe plates follow the car. There is a website, but it only updates the DMV database in a timely, the database the city police / courts use can be > 6 months out of date.
In Indiana, the plates stay with the owner. Yet you can relignquish ownership of a vehicle either in the office or online. I'd not be surprised to find out that other states have a similar option.
You usually need to show up in person to register a vehicle. If you intend to buy a car and drive it to a different state then you may not be able to register it in the origin state because most state stipulate that you can't register a vehicle if you do not reside there or have an address there (otherwise people in small shitty states would drive a couple hours to an adjacent state to save a few hundred on tax/registration/insurance). Registering it in the destination state would be similarly impossible without the title/bill of sale in hand and some states require an inspection prior to registration. Inspections stations need to be licensed. This means it's in some cases impossible to legally buy and drive a car bought private party because you can't register it where you buy it and you need have the car inspected before registering it where you're bringing it.
Depending on the states in question the fine for invalid registration is usually much less than the cost of having the unregistered vehicle towed from A to B so many people just slap an old plate on the back and cross their fingers.
Depending on the states in question the fine for invalid registration is usually much less than the cost of having the unregistered vehicle towed from A to B so many people just slap an old plate on the back and cross their fingers.
Are there no exceptions for driving directly to a closest inspection place? In canton of Zurich, this is the AFAIK only case when you can drive without license plates (if you want to register your car and the DMV wants to inspect it, you can drive it plateless to DMV).
Most states in the mid-Atlantic region will issue 24-hour or 7-day temp tags for just this purpose (transport a new-to-buyer car from out-of-state).
[deleted]
Yes we do. But 50 states, 50 different motor vehicle bureaus. Not to mention D.C. Plus Puerto Rico etc.
Some states have an excellent DMV. Others suck. It depends.
Some states have an excellent DMV. Others suck. It depends.
No states have excellent DMVs (or BMVs, or IDS) some states just have worse ones than others.
DMV in New Hampshire is fine. It wasn't until I got to Silly Valley that I learned that what they eventually showed in Zootopia is true.
Part of it is just due to population density. They need to increase the number of DMVs by about 10 to get a reasonable distribution for the population.
Part of it is just due to population density. They need to increase the number of DMVs by about 10 to get a reasonable distribution for the population.
Wrong. Also, in NY, there is a state DMV, 57 county DMVs, and the NYC DMV. County DMV offices are run by their respective county clerks, though they do tie into the state computer systems. Many of them are fantastic.
You've used the DMV in all 50 states?
I've had a pretty good experience with the DMV in TN. I know others who haven't, but I have.
I've had a DL in 7 states so far. Yes some were good. Your mileage may vary though.
The BMV near me has been nothing but cheerful and helpful and I've done a few transactions that are off the beaten path. Wait times are usually 0-40min and it's in a strip mall so you can do your shopping while you wait. I do live in the middle of nowhere by SV standard though.
Yes. But, it's not uncommon (though not a good idea) to sell a car with the plates on, so the buyer doesn't have to go to the DMV before purchase.
I think it is uncommon, if not rare. It's a terrible idea, and depending on the location and circumstances may be illegal.
> When you get a ticket, you either name the driver, or you pay it yourself. But I haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket for someone else's car.
Or you pay a fine for not naming the driver. Which makes sense, because if you're unaware who was driving (or not willing to say), why should you be punished for speeding/running a red light, as opposed to not naming the driver.
Or you pay a fine for not naming the driver. Which makes sense, because if you're unaware who was driving (or not willing to say), why should you be punished for speeding/running a red light, as opposed to not naming the driver.
I would imagine in the US, the fifth amendment would protect you from having to name the driver.
It varies from state to state. You typically have some type of title document. When you sell your car, you sign the back with the sale value. You have to do this very carefully because if you sign the wrong part or screw something up, you have to go to the county clerk, sign an affidavit and pay for a new title that you can then sign over properly.
Some states require that the title be notarized (signed and sealed in front of a notary public who verifies your identity) which can be done at a bank at transfer time.
In both cases, the buyer is responsible for registering the car (at which time they'll pay sales tax on it. The seller will usually print and fill out a bill of sale. It's best to get this notarized too along with the title).
Unless you fill out one of the forms mentioned in the comments, the car will still be listed as belonging to you until the buyer registers it.
Some states require that the title be notarized (signed and sealed in front of a notary public who verifies your identity) which can be done at a bank at transfer time.
In both cases, the buyer is responsible for registering the car (at which time they'll pay sales tax on it. The seller will usually print and fill out a bill of sale. It's best to get this notarized too along with the title).
Unless you fill out one of the forms mentioned in the comments, the car will still be listed as belonging to you until the buyer registers it.
Not everyone complies with registrations. Compliance is especially low amongst the poor, ethnic minorities in large cities, and the wealthy elite in California.
I don't disagree, but why would a non-poor ethnic minority be less likely to follow the law?
[deleted]
Or a non-ethnic minority poor... my best guess would be some cultural distrust of government?
In California, the license plates stay with the car, and as people mentioned, there's a system to notify the DMV of ownership changes. Also, when you buy a new car, of course you have to register with the DMV and they mail you the new license plates... which takes the usual 6-8 weeks or whatever. In the meantime, you just drive the car around with no license plates.
> buyer has to go and register himself as the new owner
As you've described it, you're depending on the buyer doing the right thing.
As you've described it, you're depending on the buyer doing the right thing.
I didn't realise he sold the car with his old registration plates still on. That seems silly.
How is it silly? That's normal, in my experience; the plates transfer with the car. Do you live in a place where one must obtain new plates immediately after purchasing a car?
> That's normal, in my experience; the plates transfer with the car.
What? No they do not. The plates stay with the person not the car. You can transfer the plates from car to car as well.
> Do you live in a place where one must obtain new plates immediately after purchasing a car?
Where do you live that you don't????
Are you sure that in your state plates transfer with the car? What state is that, because I would like to look that up.
What? No they do not. The plates stay with the person not the car. You can transfer the plates from car to car as well.
> Do you live in a place where one must obtain new plates immediately after purchasing a car?
Where do you live that you don't????
Are you sure that in your state plates transfer with the car? What state is that, because I would like to look that up.
That's not true in California, at least. Plates stay with the car unless they're vanity plates.
This is the part that confused me the most. Why wouldn't they just make the new owner get new plates? It's completely trivial.
Apparently you are not allowed to (supposed to?) keep the plates in CA. At first, I thought the new owner was using the plates illegally.
Costs some $
And it costs the seller money to get new plates for his new car. Somebody in the transaction will have to buy new plates.
Different states have different laws:
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/transfer-of-plates/
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/transfer-of-plates/
They do in California.
Presumably that simple rule has some kind of exception for when your car is stolen?
There's an episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets a parking ticket. There's a number to call. He calls. "Press 1 to appeal your ticket." He presses 1. Immediately the IVR system replies, "Your appeal has been denied. Thank you." and hangs up.
The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies.
Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to raise revenue.
When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission.
Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes.
So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money. Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!
Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts perpetuate the perverse incentives.
Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to raise revenue.
When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission.
Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes.
So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money. Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!
Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts perpetuate the perverse incentives.
We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to increase tickets, while preserving the purpose!
For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.
For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.
> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.
This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.
The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility.
Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.
The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility.
Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
> if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.
That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time.
As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint.
As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with.
Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint.
As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with.
Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds.
Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.
> put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy
That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims.
Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.
That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims.
Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.
The fact that the government no longer has that money in the general fund is exactly the point.
Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.
Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.
+1 for ear-marking
I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc.
Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.
I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc.
Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.
You can get most of the way there by just mandating the fines go to a different layer of government. If it's cities deciding fine levels and enforcing them with city police, but revenues go to the state, then there is not nearly as much incentive to over-enforce.
It would be better to get rid of the revenue aspect entirely. Instead of assessing a fine (plus court costs), just assess demerit points on the license of the diver who is guilty of the traffic offense.
With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.
With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.
That already happens here in California. Three(?) strikes in a two year period and your license is suspended. At the same time, you still have to pay for the ticket.
The point I was trying to make was to eliminate fines and court costs as a form of punishment for traffic offenses. The only penalty would be demerit points on one's drivers license.
That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.
That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.
This has been successfully implemented in China. If you exceed the limit you have to watch am educational video and do some public service. Very good detriment to rich people speeding.
Yes--this would be the best, but it's always been about Revenue Collection since I got my provisional licence at 15 1/2.
Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income.
In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?"
The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair.
Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax.
I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties.
San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket.
San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to.
Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads.
(Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)
Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income.
In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?"
The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair.
Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax.
I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties.
San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket.
San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to.
Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads.
(Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)
> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!
Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
> of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA.
The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.
Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA.
The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.
That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).
> campaigned, from their PULPITS!!
Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there.
Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!
Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there.
Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!
I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way.
Now if they were to preach against the use of drugs - that would be fine. But specifically preaching about decriminalization would not be OK.
Now if they were to preach against the use of drugs - that would be fine. But specifically preaching about decriminalization would not be OK.
> I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way.
I believe you to be wrong. The protections they receive on the free exercise of religion aren't a compromise attained in exchange for tax exemption -- both are the product of the first amendment. If Congress "shall make no law" respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion (or speech), then it has no power to prevent the churches from proclaiming whatever they wish.
The tax exemption is there because making a law that imposes a tax on religion is a means of prohibiting "the free exercise thereof", for most definitions of "free" and "exercise".
Your equation makes it something more like "You have the right to exercise free speech, so long as you agree not to yell fire in a theater," which is wrong. I have the right to free speech because the government is not allowed to restrict that right, and it includes the right to yell fire in a theater. If there are harms associated with my yelling fire in a theater, then I might be liable for those harms, but if no such harms occur, then I am liable for nothing.
I believe you to be wrong. The protections they receive on the free exercise of religion aren't a compromise attained in exchange for tax exemption -- both are the product of the first amendment. If Congress "shall make no law" respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion (or speech), then it has no power to prevent the churches from proclaiming whatever they wish.
The tax exemption is there because making a law that imposes a tax on religion is a means of prohibiting "the free exercise thereof", for most definitions of "free" and "exercise".
Your equation makes it something more like "You have the right to exercise free speech, so long as you agree not to yell fire in a theater," which is wrong. I have the right to free speech because the government is not allowed to restrict that right, and it includes the right to yell fire in a theater. If there are harms associated with my yelling fire in a theater, then I might be liable for those harms, but if no such harms occur, then I am liable for nothing.
(Reasonable, non-discriminatory) taxation does not infringe on those freedoms, which is why newspapers can be taxed, as well as gun sales or sales of bibles.
That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, and whether or not you consider taxes to be infringements. Taxes on voting have been considered to be prima fascia discriminatory, despite having been largely categorized as reasonable. Why? Because it is considered de facto discriminatory against the poor.
That said, it isn't a matter of whether or not it infringes, but whether or not congress can make laws respecting them, and laws that tax religion are laws that were created to tax religion. Yes, I know that isn't a slam dunk argument, because it cuts into whether or not the tax is particular to the exercise, and whether or not the tax interferes with the free exercise of that religion, but it's worth pointing out that while your argument holds merit, there are meritorious arguments to the contrary.
Also worth noting that whether or not we can tax religion is an entirely different argument from whether or not we should tax religion, which is again a different argument from whether or not we would tax religion.
That said, it isn't a matter of whether or not it infringes, but whether or not congress can make laws respecting them, and laws that tax religion are laws that were created to tax religion. Yes, I know that isn't a slam dunk argument, because it cuts into whether or not the tax is particular to the exercise, and whether or not the tax interferes with the free exercise of that religion, but it's worth pointing out that while your argument holds merit, there are meritorious arguments to the contrary.
Also worth noting that whether or not we can tax religion is an entirely different argument from whether or not we should tax religion, which is again a different argument from whether or not we would tax religion.
> That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights,
I think those things were chosen precisely because they are guaranteed by the same document (and in the case of newspapers, the very same amendment) as was under discussion.
I think those things were chosen precisely because they are guaranteed by the same document (and in the case of newspapers, the very same amendment) as was under discussion.
Probably, but not everyone considers those things to be rights. Meanwhile, I tossed voting out because while it is patently a right, it is expressly not protected by that document.
Edit: I often forget that most people don't know the context to this. TLDR, there is no "right to vote" in the constitution. There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in the practice of voting, but if a state wanted to abolish elections for all people, they would not be infringing anyone's constitutional right to vote because no such right exists, as no such right is enumerated. Of course, not all rights are enumerated, but typically unenumerated rights are subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. Of course, this is not generally the case with voting and (lately at least) gay marriage, but altogether, this is a much longer discussion that is somewhat tangential to the argument at hand.
Edit: I often forget that most people don't know the context to this. TLDR, there is no "right to vote" in the constitution. There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in the practice of voting, but if a state wanted to abolish elections for all people, they would not be infringing anyone's constitutional right to vote because no such right exists, as no such right is enumerated. Of course, not all rights are enumerated, but typically unenumerated rights are subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. Of course, this is not generally the case with voting and (lately at least) gay marriage, but altogether, this is a much longer discussion that is somewhat tangential to the argument at hand.
There are limitations (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics), but only for actual candidates.
> [A 501(c)(3) organization] does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Naturally, it would be absurd to prohibit every opinion about drugs, prostitution, taxes, immigration, discrimination, marriage, abortion, or murder.
To quote Thomas Mann, "Everything is politics."
> [A 501(c)(3) organization] does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Naturally, it would be absurd to prohibit every opinion about drugs, prostitution, taxes, immigration, discrimination, marriage, abortion, or murder.
To quote Thomas Mann, "Everything is politics."
[deleted]
As I understand it 501(c)(3)'s may preach about issues and topics, endorsing a side related to the issues. They may not however endorse a particular candidate in an election.
This is incorrect. They are not allowed to be partisan. So endorsing parties or candidates would be off the table.
If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today.
Not the best citation but i am on a mobile.
http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
Not the best citation but i am on a mobile.
http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.
>there is a never-enforced federal statute
The IRS is the agency that would enforce this by striping the organization of its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization would then be subject to various taxes.
The IRS is the agency that would enforce this by striping the organization of its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization would then be subject to various taxes.
Until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses
Good catch! I'm a Lutheran minister, and my comment about making good people bad and good again is, precisely, informed by Dr. Luther's rant about selling indulgences.
> for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes.
My understanding is that in the Reagan era, it was assumed that if tax payers could get tax cuts passed, then common-sense budgetary-discipline would force the legislature to follow through with spending cuts. The motto was to "starve the beast".
The problem is that transfer payments (from tax payers to voter blocks) are so compelling for most politicians that they refuse to swerve in the game of political chicken.
Nowadays, some libertarian-minded voters call for spending cuts directly, hoping that the tax cuts will follow.
Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.
My understanding is that in the Reagan era, it was assumed that if tax payers could get tax cuts passed, then common-sense budgetary-discipline would force the legislature to follow through with spending cuts. The motto was to "starve the beast".
The problem is that transfer payments (from tax payers to voter blocks) are so compelling for most politicians that they refuse to swerve in the game of political chicken.
Nowadays, some libertarian-minded voters call for spending cuts directly, hoping that the tax cuts will follow.
Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.
> Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The whole concept of a "market signal" is that it's not a deliberate communication.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The whole concept of a "market signal" is that it's not a deliberate communication.
Right--the regular drivers who are never found in violation are the ones who are claimed to benefit from enforcement. If there are budget shortfalls that can be fixed by enforcement-related revenues, let those who benefit be the ones who pay (via taxation).
Except that it does good. To go out and catch idiots driving is a good thing.
> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!
Darn!! You just basically described what racketeering is, no??
Darn!! You just basically described what racketeering is, no??
Wait, political corruption from an elected official is your WTF here?
Have you been paying attention?
Have you been paying attention?
Taxes are theft. Lower taxes at all costs. Of course don't cut police, road maintainence, schools, etc. so what's a politician to do? Be honest?
Edit: The first 2 sentences are sarcasm. Though there are people who think this way.
Edit: The first 2 sentences are sarcasm. Though there are people who think this way.
For what its worth, I think most people who agree with your first to sentences would have no problem with cutting the things you list in the third.
I am one of those people.
Though what you forget to add is that we'd rather pay to have such services in our communities by ourselves, of our own volition, rather than it being taken from us without our explicit consent. This discussion always boils down to consent.
Though what you forget to add is that we'd rather pay to have such services in our communities by ourselves, of our own volition, rather than it being taken from us without our explicit consent. This discussion always boils down to consent.
One of the big problems I have with this theory is the way "consent" is being defined: I find it illogical to think that every person should have to explicitly agree to every possible law they could be held accountable for. Exercising this would become the biggest farce and waste untold amounts of money.
Well, Libertarianism usually means very little government and as a consequence, very few laws. So there is no need to have elaborate mechanisms to "consent" to countless laws. Though the precise amount of "laws" varies depending on which Libertarian you speak to.
They will all, however, agree on property/ownership law and the Non-aggression principle. It's actually quite elegant, because you could define all sorts of "laws" or prescribed/prohibited behaviors simply by following through with the consequences of the above principles.
E.g. Fraud, or breaking a contract. The money and ownership of goods was transferred from one entity to another. If one side "refuses" to hold up their side of the trade, then they're effectively depriving the other party of the use of the property that they own.
They will all, however, agree on property/ownership law and the Non-aggression principle. It's actually quite elegant, because you could define all sorts of "laws" or prescribed/prohibited behaviors simply by following through with the consequences of the above principles.
E.g. Fraud, or breaking a contract. The money and ownership of goods was transferred from one entity to another. If one side "refuses" to hold up their side of the trade, then they're effectively depriving the other party of the use of the property that they own.
I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for snow plows and salting the roads, but my neighbor doesn't, so...?
I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.
I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.
Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads.
Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent.
It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.
Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent.
It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.
How are "taxes theft" but landownership is not? Why does someone get to claim exclusive ownership over some land and another person does not (just because the first persons ancestors reached the land first (in some cases, only if you conveniently ignore the native population))?
Well, one is where your labor and the benefit of it (earnings) get taken from you without consent. The other is land ownership, I'm not sure how else to digest that? Are you implying that land belongs to everyone and someone claiming exclusive ownership of it is somehow theft?
The usual response about how land "becomes" owned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
I really can't think of any fair way of distributing land other than the mechanism above which is essentially "first come first serve" along with a "use it or lose it" expiry mechanism.
The usual response about how land "becomes" owned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
I really can't think of any fair way of distributing land other than the mechanism above which is essentially "first come first serve" along with a "use it or lose it" expiry mechanism.
Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? Who pays for those things that everyone benefits from but no one sees? International trade agreements, armed forces, border controls, research, pest control, safety regulation, building regulation, civil defence etc etc.
> Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick?
They die.
This is considered a feature, not a bug. Beneath the smokescreen rhetoric of consent and personal freedom, the core ethos of libertarianism is "survival of the fittest."
They die.
This is considered a feature, not a bug. Beneath the smokescreen rhetoric of consent and personal freedom, the core ethos of libertarianism is "survival of the fittest."
I'm really glad the pretty words and nice imagery are coming off this fact. I've seen a lot more acknowledgement lately that this is how libertarian societies work out for people lacking any ownership of their own resources.
Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die".
Meanwhile, on the state's watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
Meanwhile, on the state's watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
So... "Family and community" seem not to be working for today's homeless and hungry. Why not?
Are taxes so strangling that families and communities simply cannot afford not to let their neighbour/uncle sleep on the street/eat from the trash? Bear in mind that people spend $20B/year on pay-to-play games on their phones.
Is the overbearing nature of the nanny-state confusing the libertarian "ethos", i. e. by creating the illusion that there are no homeless, or by requiring true libertarians to temporarily redirect their spending to PACs until such time when true freedom is achieved and the ethos can fully unfold?
If "family and community" are your support group, how much (actual) freedom do you have to – for example – come out as gay as a member of a conservative family in a likeminded small community?
Most poor people are concentrated within a few communities, and poverty often runs in families. Conversely, someone living on Cape Cod probably can't find a poor person within 20 miles or in their family. Should the brunt of care for poor people be born by others in or near poverty?
Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?
Are taxes so strangling that families and communities simply cannot afford not to let their neighbour/uncle sleep on the street/eat from the trash? Bear in mind that people spend $20B/year on pay-to-play games on their phones.
Is the overbearing nature of the nanny-state confusing the libertarian "ethos", i. e. by creating the illusion that there are no homeless, or by requiring true libertarians to temporarily redirect their spending to PACs until such time when true freedom is achieved and the ethos can fully unfold?
If "family and community" are your support group, how much (actual) freedom do you have to – for example – come out as gay as a member of a conservative family in a likeminded small community?
Most poor people are concentrated within a few communities, and poverty often runs in families. Conversely, someone living on Cape Cod probably can't find a poor person within 20 miles or in their family. Should the brunt of care for poor people be born by others in or near poverty?
Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?
>"Most poor people are concentrated within a few communities, and poverty often runs in families. Conversely, someone living on Cape Cod probably can't find a poor person within 20 miles or in their family. Should the brunt of care for poor people be born by others in or near poverty?"
By community I meant any arbitrary level of "distance" between the person needing help and the one willing to give it. Some will want to only take care of the people within their near community or family. Others will go out of their way to feed people in distant continents, as I'm sure some do right now. Heck, if there weren't people like that existing right now, then who in the world convinced governments to send aid to third-world countries? Noble politicians? I'm sure polls would answer that.
>"Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?"
That's not up to me to decide. That's up to those people that want to give to charity and help whatever type of needy person they want.
But if you ask me, I'd put orphans at the top. Does that make me an evil person for not prioritizing mentally-ill individuals that can't function in society? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say no of course. It's a complicated problem. I told you my preference above. Other individuals have other motives and preferences, just like some want to distribute their money equally (such as yourself?).
By community I meant any arbitrary level of "distance" between the person needing help and the one willing to give it. Some will want to only take care of the people within their near community or family. Others will go out of their way to feed people in distant continents, as I'm sure some do right now. Heck, if there weren't people like that existing right now, then who in the world convinced governments to send aid to third-world countries? Noble politicians? I'm sure polls would answer that.
>"Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?"
That's not up to me to decide. That's up to those people that want to give to charity and help whatever type of needy person they want.
But if you ask me, I'd put orphans at the top. Does that make me an evil person for not prioritizing mentally-ill individuals that can't function in society? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say no of course. It's a complicated problem. I told you my preference above. Other individuals have other motives and preferences, just like some want to distribute their money equally (such as yourself?).
> Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die".
Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?
Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?
The argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity.
Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes.
And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.
Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes.
And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.
It's a circular argument. The response will be "their family and the community will look after them". But if there's no family, and even if there is, "community" will be some nebulous concept with no practical example, nor method for which to reliably and practically have any impact.
Since you specifically mentioned homelessness, here's a good example of care provided by "family and the community" back in the days when those were the sole sources of relief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_penny_coffin
Do I understand correctly that this kind of thing is what you consider normal in your ideal society?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_penny_coffin
Do I understand correctly that this kind of thing is what you consider normal in your ideal society?
Charity.
So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?
Charity in fact would deny someone else the ability to look after themselves, which would be denying them rights.
So charity doesn't really fit with the morality of Libertarianism.
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-char...
Charity in fact would deny someone else the ability to look after themselves, which would be denying them rights.
So charity doesn't really fit with the morality of Libertarianism.
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-char...
>"So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?"
I'm not sure who or what has been creating a vilified image of the Libertarian for you. Libertarianism has nothing to do with "looking after oneself", and you're probably just dressing up the word "selfish" by stating that. It has everything to do with consent, and freedom from coercion. Now, what kind of world we choose to make after those principles dictates what kind of society we are in right now.
Also, what the other person said. You're posting a link that is making commentary about Objectivism, not Libertarianism.
I'm not sure who or what has been creating a vilified image of the Libertarian for you. Libertarianism has nothing to do with "looking after oneself", and you're probably just dressing up the word "selfish" by stating that. It has everything to do with consent, and freedom from coercion. Now, what kind of world we choose to make after those principles dictates what kind of society we are in right now.
Also, what the other person said. You're posting a link that is making commentary about Objectivism, not Libertarianism.
Objectivism isn't libertarianism.
And no, giving charity does no deny another a right. They can choose to forego their rights. And I would suggest not giving to those who do so out of choice.
Charity is a choice, not an obligation enforced through violence. As such it is the correct answer.
Whether we live in such a society or not, charity exists and provides for those who cannot or cannot yet provide for themselves. It works pretty well.
Is it in my interest to give to another? If I am free to make that choice then yes.
And no, giving charity does no deny another a right. They can choose to forego their rights. And I would suggest not giving to those who do so out of choice.
Charity is a choice, not an obligation enforced through violence. As such it is the correct answer.
Whether we live in such a society or not, charity exists and provides for those who cannot or cannot yet provide for themselves. It works pretty well.
Is it in my interest to give to another? If I am free to make that choice then yes.
[deleted]
"It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent."
Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.
Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.
>"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance."
The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you.
You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community.
Or on other planets for that matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you.
You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community.
Or on other planets for that matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
> So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases.
Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases.
Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
I think you're missing my point, which has to do not with the desirability of entering into such an agreement, but rather with how to enforce such an agreement in the absence of any sort of state.
You wont be able to enforce every arbitrary agreement. The constitutional courts will only rule on limited matters such as physical aggressions.
And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent.
In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt.
Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.
And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent.
In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt.
Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.
How do you solve these problems?
1. I do not wish to consent to the contracts of your community. However, I was born here, and lack the resources to leave, or any goodwill that may assist me in doing so. Perhaps I am LGBT in the deep south.
2. Somebody is murdered. A person can be demonstrated to be the killer, but they do not consent to jailing or court.
3. Somebody is emitting carbon dioxide on their own property, as I suppose is their right. But the expanding sea is now trespassing on my island, flooding my property.
4. I buy up all the land surrounding your property, and erect a wall. I refuse to grant you passage onto my property (and thus, off of yours) unless you sign a contract agreeing to turn over to me a portion of all value you produce.
1. I do not wish to consent to the contracts of your community. However, I was born here, and lack the resources to leave, or any goodwill that may assist me in doing so. Perhaps I am LGBT in the deep south.
2. Somebody is murdered. A person can be demonstrated to be the killer, but they do not consent to jailing or court.
3. Somebody is emitting carbon dioxide on their own property, as I suppose is their right. But the expanding sea is now trespassing on my island, flooding my property.
4. I buy up all the land surrounding your property, and erect a wall. I refuse to grant you passage onto my property (and thus, off of yours) unless you sign a contract agreeing to turn over to me a portion of all value you produce.
The thing I've come to realize after being alive for a while is, the world you want to live in is pure fantasy.
The idea that we'd do away with a democratic state and replace it with all-volunteer contracts and shit, it has absolutely no resemblance to reality at all. It's an even bigger fiction than a communist paradise, from each according to his ability and all that.
BUT...my ideal world (for simplicity's sake, star trek--post-scarcity, people can explore and make art, etc) is also fiction. I get that. I don't think we're there, of course, though I'd like to see us get closer.
The difference between our aspirational fictional worlds is, whenever people take steps toward yours (think America in the late 1800s, which is probably the best proxy for the libertarian paradise we could look at in the West), lots of people suffer. Private charity simply didn't--and wouldn't--work the way libertarians think it would/should. Life is hard for a lot of people, and shitty, and we've moved beyond that because it doesn't have to be a cruel world like that.
But when people take steps toward my ideal post-scarcity world (think, broadly speaking, Scandinavia, or even anywhere with universal health care, like Canada), it actually kinda works. Health care systems get funded, people can be artists without starving. People suffer less.
Maybe you prioritize the libertarian ideal of personal freedom (which is not what I'd even consider freedom in any way) over the suffering of a bunch of people, and hey, that's your prerogative.
But looking at the outcomes of one or the other, man I know where I throw in.
The idea that we'd do away with a democratic state and replace it with all-volunteer contracts and shit, it has absolutely no resemblance to reality at all. It's an even bigger fiction than a communist paradise, from each according to his ability and all that.
BUT...my ideal world (for simplicity's sake, star trek--post-scarcity, people can explore and make art, etc) is also fiction. I get that. I don't think we're there, of course, though I'd like to see us get closer.
The difference between our aspirational fictional worlds is, whenever people take steps toward yours (think America in the late 1800s, which is probably the best proxy for the libertarian paradise we could look at in the West), lots of people suffer. Private charity simply didn't--and wouldn't--work the way libertarians think it would/should. Life is hard for a lot of people, and shitty, and we've moved beyond that because it doesn't have to be a cruel world like that.
But when people take steps toward my ideal post-scarcity world (think, broadly speaking, Scandinavia, or even anywhere with universal health care, like Canada), it actually kinda works. Health care systems get funded, people can be artists without starving. People suffer less.
Maybe you prioritize the libertarian ideal of personal freedom (which is not what I'd even consider freedom in any way) over the suffering of a bunch of people, and hey, that's your prerogative.
But looking at the outcomes of one or the other, man I know where I throw in.
How do you account for the free rider problem? Suppose you live in a small town how do they collectively pay for expensive medical services if one member of the small community gets an illness that requires lots of resources to treat? Isn't it better to distribute the burden over a larger population? Wouldn't there be a massive amount of administrative overlap if all services truly were done at the community level? How do you prevent the race to the bottom mentality if everything is done at the community level?
Probably not police but certainly schools.
Cut Medicaid/Medicare?
Be very happy that HN has an undownvote button.
I very much enjoyed this article. The larger takeaways for me are that most citizens (or people) don't know the law, don't know the basis of law, and don't know the foundations of creating and defining law. Yet we're forced into submitting ourselves to what someone else wrote with deficiencies or moderately malicious intent where fundamental rights and freedoms granted in the constitution are violated.
Governments the world over are becoming bigger and more powerful, while common people are subjugated and controlled through diktats. I don't know what's the best way to improve the situation (other than some activists and campaigners doing the work for the society), but a somewhat in-depth course in law seems like a fundamental requirement for everyone.
Governments the world over are becoming bigger and more powerful, while common people are subjugated and controlled through diktats. I don't know what's the best way to improve the situation (other than some activists and campaigners doing the work for the society), but a somewhat in-depth course in law seems like a fundamental requirement for everyone.
There's another takeaway here too. This person does know the law, well enough to teach it, and successfully won his trial by proving that the officer involved perjured himself. His "success" resulted in him losing a bond for twice the cost of the ticket and no action being taken against the police officer whose perjury initiated the charge against him.
His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him. Yay for sticking it to the man! The best case scenario we have is for both sides to lose. There's no way to win. If we want to change this situation, we need to pay more attention to the procedural semantics of our justice system, not just the law. You can be entirely vindicated in the eyes of the law and still lose every bit as badly because of the process you're forced to submit to just to contest the legal aspects of the case.
His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him. Yay for sticking it to the man! The best case scenario we have is for both sides to lose. There's no way to win. If we want to change this situation, we need to pay more attention to the procedural semantics of our justice system, not just the law. You can be entirely vindicated in the eyes of the law and still lose every bit as badly because of the process you're forced to submit to just to contest the legal aspects of the case.
> His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him.
Unfortunately, this doesn't actually affect the involved asshole cops/officials/attorneys who blithely violated the public trust: the costs come out of citizens' taxes (or services), not out of the salaries of those people. It's pretty much lose-lose for everyone except them.
Unfortunately, this doesn't actually affect the involved asshole cops/officials/attorneys who blithely violated the public trust: the costs come out of citizens' taxes (or services), not out of the salaries of those people. It's pretty much lose-lose for everyone except them.
Unless we change it.
How would we change it? Malfeasance like perjury on the job is already illegal, but if the legal system excuses it case by case, what other recourse is there? The way you change stuff like this is at the ballot box, but the vast majority of voters treat voting like their own personal pissing contest instead of something with consequences (seriously, look at some of the research around what determines the way people vote. It's an utter farce).
Look how easy it is to do from their end as well. Just don't create a "process" for citizens to win and make it no one's responsibility to deal with when it happens. Everyone just shrugs their shoulders and "not-my-job's" it and there's no one to blame!
As an example of this, "granted in the constitution" in your post.
The constitution does no such thing. As a free people, we created the federal government and gave it specific powers, which are enumerated in the constitution. The rights of the people are not limited or enumerated.
The bill of rights was controversial because many people thought that listing some rights would give nefarious people the idea that this was all the rights the people have.
In fact, the 9th Amendment states:
The constitution does no such thing. As a free people, we created the federal government and gave it specific powers, which are enumerated in the constitution. The rights of the people are not limited or enumerated.
The bill of rights was controversial because many people thought that listing some rights would give nefarious people the idea that this was all the rights the people have.
In fact, the 9th Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.To be fair the author clearly doesn't understand the basis of the law either. Hint: it's not the constitution, even if it ever was.
It's power and the threat of violence from the elite.
It's power and the threat of violence from the elite.
When I tried to recover my doubled appeal bond, I was told that the clerk was not authorized to give me my money. ..... Still nothing has happened now several months later.
Hmm. Civil asset forfeiture? The same procedure used, without much supervision by judiciary, to grab assets from persons suspected of crimes? The proceeds are used to pay for, well, more police to do more civil asset forfeiture work.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
It's a problem of our system in general. When I don't pay something I supposedly "owe" immediately penalties escalate unreasonably.
When the state doesn't pay something they owe, there is no penalty. That asymmetry breeds injustice.
When the state doesn't pay something they owe, there is no penalty. That asymmetry breeds injustice.
He could take the city to small claims court.
I doubt that very much. He wouldn't be fighting the city, he would be fighting the legal system... via the legal system.
That won't end well. Small claims court will tell him to continue following the system, and reject his claim.
There are processes he has to follow in order to get his money back. If he doesn't follow them, too bad. There are process that the court is supposed follow. If the court doesn't follow them, too bad.
Notice any problems with this approach? No one in the court system is held responsible. The people in the court system don't even have to obey the law. Where there are legal requirements for a speedy trial, or for him to get his money back, those laws are ignored with impunity by the people in the system.
In contrast, for the average person, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
The courts must not only be impartial (justice is blind), they must be perceived to be impartial. Stories like the OP show that justice is often bigoted, and quite potentially illegal.
That won't end well. Small claims court will tell him to continue following the system, and reject his claim.
There are processes he has to follow in order to get his money back. If he doesn't follow them, too bad. There are process that the court is supposed follow. If the court doesn't follow them, too bad.
Notice any problems with this approach? No one in the court system is held responsible. The people in the court system don't even have to obey the law. Where there are legal requirements for a speedy trial, or for him to get his money back, those laws are ignored with impunity by the people in the system.
In contrast, for the average person, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
The courts must not only be impartial (justice is blind), they must be perceived to be impartial. Stories like the OP show that justice is often bigoted, and quite potentially illegal.
Recovering the double-the-amount bond will likely need to be pursued through the normal, frustrating channels.
But perhaps he could take the police officer to small claims court. He could introduce the court transcript where the police officer admitted under oath that he perjured himself when signing the ticket. And he could argue that the time spent fighting the illegal ticket amounted to damages.
That police officer wouldn't be paying the judgment out of pocket. The city would reimburse him rather than risk any complaint from the officer that he perjured himself and incurred the judgment in the course of doing his job the way that he was instructed to do it.
But perhaps he could take the police officer to small claims court. He could introduce the court transcript where the police officer admitted under oath that he perjured himself when signing the ticket. And he could argue that the time spent fighting the illegal ticket amounted to damages.
That police officer wouldn't be paying the judgment out of pocket. The city would reimburse him rather than risk any complaint from the officer that he perjured himself and incurred the judgment in the course of doing his job the way that he was instructed to do it.
"No one in the court system is held responsible."
... That is not entirely true (not to say it is false, but more nuanced). Much of the court system is elected (or directly appointed by someone elected), which is supposed to balance abuse in the long run. Obviously it takes publicity and a lot of wrangling to make an impact through elections, but it is technically feasible.
... That is not entirely true (not to say it is false, but more nuanced). Much of the court system is elected (or directly appointed by someone elected), which is supposed to balance abuse in the long run. Obviously it takes publicity and a lot of wrangling to make an impact through elections, but it is technically feasible.
i.e. if you break the law, you are punished in / by the courts. If the people in the court system break the law, they don't get re-elected.
I don't find that a satisfactory answer. And I don't think that's "holding them responsible". Let's look at what happens in real life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Connick_Sr.#Prosecutoria...
One judge said Connick's office had in fact committed a pattern of violations, failing to disclose exculpatory blood type evidence, failing to disclose audio tapes of witness testimony, failing to disclose a deathbed confession of evidence destruction by the prosecuting attorney Gerry Deegan, and failing to disclose eyewitness identification of the killer that did not match Thompson,
And what happened to the people who broke the law and put innocent people in jail?
I'll let you guess.
I don't find that a satisfactory answer. And I don't think that's "holding them responsible". Let's look at what happens in real life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Connick_Sr.#Prosecutoria...
One judge said Connick's office had in fact committed a pattern of violations, failing to disclose exculpatory blood type evidence, failing to disclose audio tapes of witness testimony, failing to disclose a deathbed confession of evidence destruction by the prosecuting attorney Gerry Deegan, and failing to disclose eyewitness identification of the killer that did not match Thompson,
And what happened to the people who broke the law and put innocent people in jail?
I'll let you guess.
Makes me wonder how well I'd go in court against a particularly egregious violation of my civil and human rights. About 7 months ago I had a mental breakdown and rather publicly announced it to quite a lot of people, to the point where I sparked an article in Vice Magazine. I was not in my right mind, having suffered over 18 months of intense stress and two operations (onevrelativeky minor, the other rather more major and painful). I consequently drive aimlessly for at least 9 hours in distress, before I slowly came to my senses and started to realise the enormity of what I had just done.
After several more hours I came home. The police had been there and filed a missing person's report about me, I decided that I knew what was coming next and didn't like my prospects for freedom even though I hadn't broken any laws. So anyway, I arrived home at about 5:30am, where I was greeted by my wife who immediately put me to bed and made sure I got some rest and care (my wife is amazing!), and whilst I didn't get any sleep my young son - who mercifully had no idea what just transpired - for some reason woke up and gave me a huge hug which I have to say is one of the most wonderful things you can get after being so upset.
Several hours later the police knocked on my front door, my wife answered and they demanded to be let in - which my wife allowed. Three large and burley policemen entered into my bedroom and I was forced to sit up, and there I groggily argued that I was fine, any thoughts of suicide had passed and that all I needed was sleep, as by this time I had been awake for close to 16 hours. My wife agreed. They somewhat sheepish shaky shuffled around trying to work out what to do, eventually electing to call the NSW Ambulance Service, who arrived and proceeded to aggressively grill me, speak over the top of me and in general ignore the wishes and explanations of both myself and my wife. The room was at this stage very crowded, as there were three police officers, two ambulance service ladies, my wife standing in her pyjamas by the side of the bed and myself, still lying in bed and hoping they would all go away so I could fall asleep.
Through the my dulled cognitive abilities I heard them tell me they would be forced to take me to Liverpool hospital involuntarily. This would entail the police officers bodily hauling me out of bed and literally carry me to the awaiting ambulance in front of all my neighbours. There I would, they warned, be placed into an assessment area whilst a determination was made as to what to do with me.
I didn't like the sound of that, not least because I had actually already read the legislation around this area - the NSW Mental Health Act 2007 - and in fact knew they were well within their rights to do so. I also knew that if I didn't go in a vokuntary capacity that they could hold me for up to 12 hours before deciding whether I should be stuck in a psychiatric facility surrounded by people suffering from delusions, mania, violent tendencies, and generally people who would not necessarily make my mental state any better. So I elected to go with them voluntarily, but in their insistence I went with them in their ambulance (For this I was sent a $600 bill).
When I arrived, they shoved forms in my face, which I signed without really knowing what I was in fact signing. I'm knew it would be dangerous to question this, because he hat would be considered not being "compliant" and likely cause them to make me an involuntary patient. I was eventually brought over to a bed in the ED ward, where a guard sat down next to me.
Through the mists of fatigue it slowly occurred to me that it was rather unusual that a guard should be placed with someone who was a voluntary patient, as a voluntary patient is actually free to leave at any time whereas an involuntary patient is detained until assessed and determined not to be held any further - or as is more likely, they are locked in the psychiatric wing where you can be legally drugged if you say the wrong thing, complain about your treatment and conditions or generally do anything the staff don't like. So knowing this, I asked what was going on and was advised I had been "sectioned". I didn't need to ask for clarification - to my horror it was clear that I had been placed as an involuntary patient under Section 20 of the Mental Health Act, which allows an ambulance officer to have you detained at an authorised mental health facility to be processed by a psychiatrist who determines your level of sanity and has the power to place you in psychiatric care for up to three months.
I, of course, had been told I was to be entering the facility as a voluntary patient - and it had never occurred to me that anyone would knowingly lie about something like this in front of witnesses! So I demanded to see someone about this.
This was a big mistake. Whilst I was arguing quietly and insisting that either a mistake had been made or I had been deceived into coming, a decision was made and I was summarily ordered to get up and follow them, whereupon I was moved into an isolation room commonly used for patients undergoing drug withdrawal or having psychotic breaks. I protested and asked why they were incarcerating me: I got no response. And there I stayed for the next five and a half hours. I was seen by one doctor who checked my vitals, but the next time I was seen was by the psychiatrist who determines whether you should be there in the first place.
I was fortunate that they alllwed me to keep my phone as I immediately called one if my best and most loyal friends, who arrived in the hospital not 25 minutes or so after I was incarcerated. He demanded to be allowed to stay with me in the room, and they allowed this. He stayed for the entire 5 hours.
As I was saying, I was seen by the psychiatrist on duty after 4.5 hours of quietly rotting in this locked and brightly lit, open to everyone, observation room, with only my friend for company and no chance of sleep. Somehow I kept my sanity and quietly explained the situation to the psychiatrist, who after consulting with my wife (who I add I called, not the hospital) and my friend realised that it would be best for me to be released into the care of my family. Precisely the thing my family, friends and yes, myself had been saying for approximately 6 hours.
I have now been battling the health system for 7 months. I have now been lied to, both verbally and in writing, have been given wrong information on the policies of the hospital, have pointed out these inaccuracies and the implications (they broke the law!) and been ignored, and have been dismissed by the HCCC who gave told me that they can do nothing because although they agree that perhaps the law has been broken, it's not considered serious enough to investigate further.
The interesting thing is: I persevered and eventually found the mistake that made them suddenly sit up and take notice. You see, in one of the most two letters from the General Manager of the hospital, someone drafted a response to a number of my specific questions and had him sign off on it. This person was clearly feeling very clever, and decided to put an end to my annoyingly insistence that I had been traumatised and mistreated by the ED. In their letter thry told me that if I wanted mybrecirds I was free to apply for them if I paid $40 in cash, in person at the hospital.
So I did.
After the statutory 21 maximum 21 days for processing I still had not received the documentation so I waited till day 30 and then asked for an internal review as to the reasons for the delay. Thus is mandated in law, and consequently two days later I received my paperwork.
There I discovered why neither my pyschologist, psychiatrist or doctor had received anything about my stay in hospital. They had completely neglected to fill in a discharge summary and so far as it hey knew, I was still in the ED ward. They had also not filled in the necessary paperwork mandated by hospital policy for all patients placed in seclusion. Furthermore, in the very same letter that advised me to apply for my records, I was told that patients sectioned under the Act are routinely placed in the seclusion room "as a low stimulus environment" and for their privacy. Whilst I was speaking to the information officers about my lack of paperwork I finally located the policy on the use of restraint and seclusion and was surprised to read that in fact, seclusion was specifically NOT to be used as a low stimulus environment for patience as it violated section 68 of the Act and was categorically proven to almost always cause the one being placed I isomation a great deal of trauma and impacted on their dignity and self-respect.
Suddenly the people who had been treating me as an inconvenience, troublemaker and yet another unstable mentally ill person with possible ideas of grandeur became very attentive, courteous and nervous.
It is far too little, too late. Every single one of them is now running scared, because now they have had no choice to send to the Director of Clinical Governance and already she has been speaking to me for hours, and she has confirmed that everyone of my complaints is legitimate and very serious. There is currently a number of investigations being done at Director level and there are almost certainly a bunch of very nervous and worried staff members who must have never in their wildest dreams believed that someone brought in as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2007 could possibly have the determination and intestinal fortitude to smash through a system designed to place road blocks in the way of complaints at every opportunity.
After several more hours I came home. The police had been there and filed a missing person's report about me, I decided that I knew what was coming next and didn't like my prospects for freedom even though I hadn't broken any laws. So anyway, I arrived home at about 5:30am, where I was greeted by my wife who immediately put me to bed and made sure I got some rest and care (my wife is amazing!), and whilst I didn't get any sleep my young son - who mercifully had no idea what just transpired - for some reason woke up and gave me a huge hug which I have to say is one of the most wonderful things you can get after being so upset.
Several hours later the police knocked on my front door, my wife answered and they demanded to be let in - which my wife allowed. Three large and burley policemen entered into my bedroom and I was forced to sit up, and there I groggily argued that I was fine, any thoughts of suicide had passed and that all I needed was sleep, as by this time I had been awake for close to 16 hours. My wife agreed. They somewhat sheepish shaky shuffled around trying to work out what to do, eventually electing to call the NSW Ambulance Service, who arrived and proceeded to aggressively grill me, speak over the top of me and in general ignore the wishes and explanations of both myself and my wife. The room was at this stage very crowded, as there were three police officers, two ambulance service ladies, my wife standing in her pyjamas by the side of the bed and myself, still lying in bed and hoping they would all go away so I could fall asleep.
Through the my dulled cognitive abilities I heard them tell me they would be forced to take me to Liverpool hospital involuntarily. This would entail the police officers bodily hauling me out of bed and literally carry me to the awaiting ambulance in front of all my neighbours. There I would, they warned, be placed into an assessment area whilst a determination was made as to what to do with me.
I didn't like the sound of that, not least because I had actually already read the legislation around this area - the NSW Mental Health Act 2007 - and in fact knew they were well within their rights to do so. I also knew that if I didn't go in a vokuntary capacity that they could hold me for up to 12 hours before deciding whether I should be stuck in a psychiatric facility surrounded by people suffering from delusions, mania, violent tendencies, and generally people who would not necessarily make my mental state any better. So I elected to go with them voluntarily, but in their insistence I went with them in their ambulance (For this I was sent a $600 bill).
When I arrived, they shoved forms in my face, which I signed without really knowing what I was in fact signing. I'm knew it would be dangerous to question this, because he hat would be considered not being "compliant" and likely cause them to make me an involuntary patient. I was eventually brought over to a bed in the ED ward, where a guard sat down next to me.
Through the mists of fatigue it slowly occurred to me that it was rather unusual that a guard should be placed with someone who was a voluntary patient, as a voluntary patient is actually free to leave at any time whereas an involuntary patient is detained until assessed and determined not to be held any further - or as is more likely, they are locked in the psychiatric wing where you can be legally drugged if you say the wrong thing, complain about your treatment and conditions or generally do anything the staff don't like. So knowing this, I asked what was going on and was advised I had been "sectioned". I didn't need to ask for clarification - to my horror it was clear that I had been placed as an involuntary patient under Section 20 of the Mental Health Act, which allows an ambulance officer to have you detained at an authorised mental health facility to be processed by a psychiatrist who determines your level of sanity and has the power to place you in psychiatric care for up to three months.
I, of course, had been told I was to be entering the facility as a voluntary patient - and it had never occurred to me that anyone would knowingly lie about something like this in front of witnesses! So I demanded to see someone about this.
This was a big mistake. Whilst I was arguing quietly and insisting that either a mistake had been made or I had been deceived into coming, a decision was made and I was summarily ordered to get up and follow them, whereupon I was moved into an isolation room commonly used for patients undergoing drug withdrawal or having psychotic breaks. I protested and asked why they were incarcerating me: I got no response. And there I stayed for the next five and a half hours. I was seen by one doctor who checked my vitals, but the next time I was seen was by the psychiatrist who determines whether you should be there in the first place.
I was fortunate that they alllwed me to keep my phone as I immediately called one if my best and most loyal friends, who arrived in the hospital not 25 minutes or so after I was incarcerated. He demanded to be allowed to stay with me in the room, and they allowed this. He stayed for the entire 5 hours.
As I was saying, I was seen by the psychiatrist on duty after 4.5 hours of quietly rotting in this locked and brightly lit, open to everyone, observation room, with only my friend for company and no chance of sleep. Somehow I kept my sanity and quietly explained the situation to the psychiatrist, who after consulting with my wife (who I add I called, not the hospital) and my friend realised that it would be best for me to be released into the care of my family. Precisely the thing my family, friends and yes, myself had been saying for approximately 6 hours.
I have now been battling the health system for 7 months. I have now been lied to, both verbally and in writing, have been given wrong information on the policies of the hospital, have pointed out these inaccuracies and the implications (they broke the law!) and been ignored, and have been dismissed by the HCCC who gave told me that they can do nothing because although they agree that perhaps the law has been broken, it's not considered serious enough to investigate further.
The interesting thing is: I persevered and eventually found the mistake that made them suddenly sit up and take notice. You see, in one of the most two letters from the General Manager of the hospital, someone drafted a response to a number of my specific questions and had him sign off on it. This person was clearly feeling very clever, and decided to put an end to my annoyingly insistence that I had been traumatised and mistreated by the ED. In their letter thry told me that if I wanted mybrecirds I was free to apply for them if I paid $40 in cash, in person at the hospital.
So I did.
After the statutory 21 maximum 21 days for processing I still had not received the documentation so I waited till day 30 and then asked for an internal review as to the reasons for the delay. Thus is mandated in law, and consequently two days later I received my paperwork.
There I discovered why neither my pyschologist, psychiatrist or doctor had received anything about my stay in hospital. They had completely neglected to fill in a discharge summary and so far as it hey knew, I was still in the ED ward. They had also not filled in the necessary paperwork mandated by hospital policy for all patients placed in seclusion. Furthermore, in the very same letter that advised me to apply for my records, I was told that patients sectioned under the Act are routinely placed in the seclusion room "as a low stimulus environment" and for their privacy. Whilst I was speaking to the information officers about my lack of paperwork I finally located the policy on the use of restraint and seclusion and was surprised to read that in fact, seclusion was specifically NOT to be used as a low stimulus environment for patience as it violated section 68 of the Act and was categorically proven to almost always cause the one being placed I isomation a great deal of trauma and impacted on their dignity and self-respect.
Suddenly the people who had been treating me as an inconvenience, troublemaker and yet another unstable mentally ill person with possible ideas of grandeur became very attentive, courteous and nervous.
It is far too little, too late. Every single one of them is now running scared, because now they have had no choice to send to the Director of Clinical Governance and already she has been speaking to me for hours, and she has confirmed that everyone of my complaints is legitimate and very serious. There is currently a number of investigations being done at Director level and there are almost certainly a bunch of very nervous and worried staff members who must have never in their wildest dreams believed that someone brought in as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2007 could possibly have the determination and intestinal fortitude to smash through a system designed to place road blocks in the way of complaints at every opportunity.
Could you make a different topic for this? It's extremely long and seems only tangentially related to fighting red light tickets.
Which bit is off-topic? And I think if you believe that the story linked to is only about traffic tickets, then I rather think you have missed the larger point the author was making.
Thanks for telling your story, very interesting. "The system" can sometimes become very scary once the people meant to protect us get involved.
It's interesting to me that it is easy to find clearly mentally ill homeless people walking around free, and most neighbourhoods have well-known ones that must be being wilfully ignored by police, etc, but an otherwise normal (and obviously intelligent) member of society just stating that he is having a mental breakdown and then going missing (which every adult is legally allowed to do), could cause such a chain of events.
I hope you get satisfaction. It's such an important thing to deprive someone of their liberty that it should never be taken lightly and routinely, as appears to have happened in your case. All the 't's should have been crossed and the 'i's dotted.
It's interesting to me that it is easy to find clearly mentally ill homeless people walking around free, and most neighbourhoods have well-known ones that must be being wilfully ignored by police, etc, but an otherwise normal (and obviously intelligent) member of society just stating that he is having a mental breakdown and then going missing (which every adult is legally allowed to do), could cause such a chain of events.
I hope you get satisfaction. It's such an important thing to deprive someone of their liberty that it should never be taken lightly and routinely, as appears to have happened in your case. All the 't's should have been crossed and the 'i's dotted.
If you are not satisfied with their actions, then typically the only remedy is to go to court, or at least mention the possibility in passing (unless you're in the mafia / government already). As for how well you'd do in court, you'd have to ask a lawyer to find out.
Unfortunately I think you may be right. But before I get to court, I'm going to see what their upper management do. But I felt striking similarities in this issue as with the story presented here in that people who should know better literally do not understand the law, or the responsibilities and principles they must uphold.
My concern with mentioning legal action in passing is that they may decide to stop all investigations whilst lawyers find ways of minimising their liability. They have already made huge errors of law and fact because they were so confident I was a vexation complainant who wasn't any threat to them in any way.
They don't think that way any more, but my goal is to ensure not that the system changes, more that they follow the law and framework they have spent a very long time formulating, educating staff on and enforcing compliance of!
My concern with mentioning legal action in passing is that they may decide to stop all investigations whilst lawyers find ways of minimising their liability. They have already made huge errors of law and fact because they were so confident I was a vexation complainant who wasn't any threat to them in any way.
They don't think that way any more, but my goal is to ensure not that the system changes, more that they follow the law and framework they have spent a very long time formulating, educating staff on and enforcing compliance of!
I have nothing to say besides I'm so sorry for what you went through. You have my empathy.
> “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”
> Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.”
Damn! That is something I'd expect a certain amount of squirming before answering. It is not something that you want to do. Even if you know you have to.
> Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.”
Damn! That is something I'd expect a certain amount of squirming before answering. It is not something that you want to do. Even if you know you have to.
He's just a cop, doing it his job bored and/or befuddled by a fairly complex line of reasoning.
He's probably just stating it as he sees it, possibly trying to avoid getting into trouble.
Anything he is doing, he's being required to do by someone above him.
Cops are also humans: he may be very well against the concept himself, but can't state it. Or he may be very well against it not for judicial reasons ... but for pragmatic reasons. People 'on the front lines' of justice often have a much more pragmatic view of it than others. The same applies to many fields.
He's probably just stating it as he sees it, possibly trying to avoid getting into trouble.
Anything he is doing, he's being required to do by someone above him.
Cops are also humans: he may be very well against the concept himself, but can't state it. Or he may be very well against it not for judicial reasons ... but for pragmatic reasons. People 'on the front lines' of justice often have a much more pragmatic view of it than others. The same applies to many fields.
There's nothing particularly complex about this line of reasoning. If the guy has no understanding of what "probable cause" means, he is plainly not qualified to be a cop. If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights. Then there's perjury on top of that - again, something a police officer should very much be familiar with.
He absolutely knows what 'probable cause' is.
"If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights."
What he's doing is what he is told.
Obviously - someone far higher than 'a cop' decided to implement the policy of 'camera tickets'.
The 'possible constitutional violation' is inherent in the policy, he's not doing anything but implementing the policy.
He's just the schmuck who has to be in court, validating the policy, which is way beyond his rank.
Also - it's debatable whether this is a 'clear violation of constitutional rights'. 'Camera tickets' are in place all over America, Canada, Europe etc. - if it were a huge violation of rights there would be a lot of court challenges.
In effect the person 'on the stand' should have been whoever in the judicial system is responsible for actually implementing the system. Then it would be 'their responsibility' if there was a violation.
The cop on the stand is basically the sorry dude forced to articulate the obvious incoherence of the policy.
"If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights."
What he's doing is what he is told.
Obviously - someone far higher than 'a cop' decided to implement the policy of 'camera tickets'.
The 'possible constitutional violation' is inherent in the policy, he's not doing anything but implementing the policy.
He's just the schmuck who has to be in court, validating the policy, which is way beyond his rank.
Also - it's debatable whether this is a 'clear violation of constitutional rights'. 'Camera tickets' are in place all over America, Canada, Europe etc. - if it were a huge violation of rights there would be a lot of court challenges.
In effect the person 'on the stand' should have been whoever in the judicial system is responsible for actually implementing the system. Then it would be 'their responsibility' if there was a violation.
The cop on the stand is basically the sorry dude forced to articulate the obvious incoherence of the policy.
The clear violation of constitutional rights here is not the camera ticket per se. It's this particular statement made by this particular officer. He could not in good conscience make a claim that he did without evidence. If his superiors demanded that he make such a claim, either directly (by ordering such) or indirectly (by demanding a certain amount of tickets), the proper course of action would be to refuse to implement it, and expose the scheme to the public. Since in this particular case the demands actually constitute making a false statement, an order requiring that would be criminal in and of itself, so this even falls under the duty to report a crime.
The rest of your argument is "I'm just following orders". This is considered sufficient to reduce culpability in some circumstances, but is not enough to avoid it entirely, on the basis that if nobody followed orders that are clearly illegal, the harm from them wouldn't occur, so people who do follow them do contribute to said harm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
The rest of your argument is "I'm just following orders". This is considered sufficient to reduce culpability in some circumstances, but is not enough to avoid it entirely, on the basis that if nobody followed orders that are clearly illegal, the harm from them wouldn't occur, so people who do follow them do contribute to said harm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
" the proper course of action would be to refuse to implement it,"
No, I'm sorry, but this is not pragmatic or reasonable.
It's not remotely clear that this is a 'violation of the constitution' and given that it's implemented in so many other areas and states, there's no way a cop can reasonably make this claim.
That's a lawyers job, not a cops job.
Can you imagine every cop on the beat trying to split hairs in all these situations?
There are tons of little things that law enforcement do that could be feasibly challenged in court.
This issue could feasibly go to the Supreme Court - so how could a cop be responsible for knowing up from down on this law?
It's not like the cops boss said 'shoot that guy who looks funny' wherein the cop would have a reasonable requirement to 'not commit a crime or do something unconstitutional'.
We're talking about traffic tickets.
In court, the cop answered the question as best he could and his honestly basically outlined the oddity of the law.
Let the courts decide the constitutionality of it all.
No, I'm sorry, but this is not pragmatic or reasonable.
It's not remotely clear that this is a 'violation of the constitution' and given that it's implemented in so many other areas and states, there's no way a cop can reasonably make this claim.
That's a lawyers job, not a cops job.
Can you imagine every cop on the beat trying to split hairs in all these situations?
There are tons of little things that law enforcement do that could be feasibly challenged in court.
This issue could feasibly go to the Supreme Court - so how could a cop be responsible for knowing up from down on this law?
It's not like the cops boss said 'shoot that guy who looks funny' wherein the cop would have a reasonable requirement to 'not commit a crime or do something unconstitutional'.
We're talking about traffic tickets.
In court, the cop answered the question as best he could and his honestly basically outlined the oddity of the law.
Let the courts decide the constitutionality of it all.
You're the one splitting hairs here.
There's a well-known standard of "probable cause". A cop is supposed to know what that standard is, it's part of their job description, and it pertains directly to what they do every day.
When a cop is asked to claim that there's probable cause when said standard isn't met, it's clearly and plainly an illegal order, because they're asked to lie. Doing so under penalty of perjury is doubly illegal. He doesn't need to be a constitutional lawyer to determine that this is illegal and cannot be obeyed.
This is exactly the same as doing a search without warrant, or arresting someone without reading them their Miranda rights, or lying under oath (something that the cop had also admitted to doing, by the way).
That this also happens to be unconstitutional is coincidental. It suffices for the cop to know it's illegal, and act accordingly.
And if they do know their orders are illegal, but follow them anyway, they should be held responsible accordingly.
There's a well-known standard of "probable cause". A cop is supposed to know what that standard is, it's part of their job description, and it pertains directly to what they do every day.
When a cop is asked to claim that there's probable cause when said standard isn't met, it's clearly and plainly an illegal order, because they're asked to lie. Doing so under penalty of perjury is doubly illegal. He doesn't need to be a constitutional lawyer to determine that this is illegal and cannot be obeyed.
This is exactly the same as doing a search without warrant, or arresting someone without reading them their Miranda rights, or lying under oath (something that the cop had also admitted to doing, by the way).
That this also happens to be unconstitutional is coincidental. It suffices for the cop to know it's illegal, and act accordingly.
And if they do know their orders are illegal, but follow them anyway, they should be held responsible accordingly.
You would think so, but it doesn't seem like there is any consequence for the officer.
In the UK I believe the first letter goes to the "keeper" of the vehicle, called a NIP (notice of intended prosecution). The keeper of the vehicle is required by law to fill in the NIP (under pain of perjury) and return it telling the police who was driving. The police will then criminally prosecute the person on the form.
I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here: http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-we...
It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.
I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here: http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-we...
It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.
Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If you don't, then you have committed an offence. Presumably this approach does not work in the US due to the 5th amendment. And from the article it looks like other approaches that are being tried in the US are also unconstitutional.
I wonder how that works in the UK - the 5th amendment is just another version of the same law in England, triggered by the abuses at the same English court, Star Chamber.
According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies."
Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies."
Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
That's not how the Westminster system works. Parliament has the right to legislate more or less as it pleases, and is not bound by any superior authority, including the courts. The courts in the U.K. cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.
In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so.
(Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.)
Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so.
(Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.)
Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
While the UK has parliamentary sovereignty, the UK is also party to the European Convention of Human Rights, which (via the Human Rights Act) takes precedence over any other law (unless a law is passed that explicitly repeals the Human Rights Act).
And indeed, in 2007 someone appealed a camera speeding ticket all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, saying that this system violates the right to remain silent!
Unfortunately, the court rejected the argument. "On the one hand, it was self-evident that it was incompatible with the immunities to base a conviction solely or mainly on the accused's silence or on a refusal to answer questions or to give evidence himself. On the other hand, the immunities could and should not prevent the accused's silence from being taken into account in situations which clearly called for an explanation. The conclusion was that the 'right to remain silent' was not absolute"
http://thenewspaper.com/news/18/1832.asp
And indeed, in 2007 someone appealed a camera speeding ticket all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, saying that this system violates the right to remain silent!
Unfortunately, the court rejected the argument. "On the one hand, it was self-evident that it was incompatible with the immunities to base a conviction solely or mainly on the accused's silence or on a refusal to answer questions or to give evidence himself. On the other hand, the immunities could and should not prevent the accused's silence from being taken into account in situations which clearly called for an explanation. The conclusion was that the 'right to remain silent' was not absolute"
http://thenewspaper.com/news/18/1832.asp
This may not be quite the case, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Co... .
I Am Not A Legal Scholar, but:
It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal.
So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome!
EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal.
So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome!
EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
While I think your general point is probably right, I don't agree with your last point that 'Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch".
That - to my understanding - is backwards. The power of the monarch is subordinated under Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty is inherent, not derived from the crown.
HMG - not parliament - exercises the royal prerogative (those powers retained by the Crown) on behalf of the monarch.
That - to my understanding - is backwards. The power of the monarch is subordinated under Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty is inherent, not derived from the crown.
HMG - not parliament - exercises the royal prerogative (those powers retained by the Crown) on behalf of the monarch.
>The power of the monarch is subordinated under Parliament.
In reality, yes. But technically the monarch can veto any Act of Parliament and appoint anyone as PM, though this would last about a day until there was a 'revolution' and the monarch was formally stripped of power.
In reality, yes. But technically the monarch can veto any Act of Parliament and appoint anyone as PM, though this would last about a day until there was a 'revolution' and the monarch was formally stripped of power.
I can't tell how that works in UK, but here (another EU country), such law is avoided by a different status of the traffic offenses. The full protections of the legal are awarded to the criminal punishments, but traffic/parking tickets aren't subject to some of the legal protections (like a trial, required witnesses). This allows them to have inverted burden of proof (we've seen your car do the traffic offence, so now you have to pay the fine or point at the actual driver at that time).
Indeed. There are actually two offences one could commit in such a case: The underlying offence (say, speeding) and failing to provide information requested under S.172 of the Road Traffic Act. The two offences are unrelated in law, being committed at entirely different times (the s.172 offence is committed 30 days after you receive the notice requesting the information) and possibly by different people.
Failure to respond to the request will often lead to a summons to court for both offences, although a successful prosecution for the underlying offence is fairly unlikely as the prosecution will usually be unable to prove who was driving. Additionally, the penalty for failure to provide information is higher than most standard traffic offences, partly as a deterrent and partly to avoid refusing to identify the driver from being the "better" option in all but the worst of circumstances.
There was a loophole for a while whereby you could return the form, correctly filled in but not signed, meaning that you have provided the information, but it is not admissible as evidence in court. This is currently still effective in Scotland. In England, case law has been established such that the form is not valid unless signed, and would usually result in the police placing the defendant firmly in the "smartass" pile and proceeding with a prosecution for failing to provide information. Just lately, police have been increasingly taking the more pragmatic approach of calling the motorists bluff in cases where he nominates himself and the case can be dealt with by way of a training course or a simple fixed penalty. They will often now offer the course or the penalty, and still charge for both offences if the driver elects for the case to progress to court.
Failure to respond to the request will often lead to a summons to court for both offences, although a successful prosecution for the underlying offence is fairly unlikely as the prosecution will usually be unable to prove who was driving. Additionally, the penalty for failure to provide information is higher than most standard traffic offences, partly as a deterrent and partly to avoid refusing to identify the driver from being the "better" option in all but the worst of circumstances.
There was a loophole for a while whereby you could return the form, correctly filled in but not signed, meaning that you have provided the information, but it is not admissible as evidence in court. This is currently still effective in Scotland. In England, case law has been established such that the form is not valid unless signed, and would usually result in the police placing the defendant firmly in the "smartass" pile and proceeding with a prosecution for failing to provide information. Just lately, police have been increasingly taking the more pragmatic approach of calling the motorists bluff in cases where he nominates himself and the case can be dealt with by way of a training course or a simple fixed penalty. They will often now offer the course or the penalty, and still charge for both offences if the driver elects for the case to progress to court.
TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates.
Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
It was indeed because of the British - the fifth amendment was meant to keep US courts from using the inquisitorial method, rather than the prosecutorial, triggered by the abuses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_...
Does the USA justice system use inquisitorial prosecution? From what I've heard about that kind of court in Germany, the USA is very far from that kind of non-adversarial proceeding.
The 5th amendment specifically allows it for military trials, but for civilian trials, no, it's made impossible outside of cases where the defendant agrees to it by the 5th amendment.
Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
I don't understand the connection you're drawing between the 5th amendment and inquisitorial systems (which I understand to be jusics systems which do not separate the judgers of law (neutral) from fact gatherers (prosecutor)). The original comment above was about the no-self-incrination clause, and now you seem to say there's a tension with the grand juries clause. But I can't see how either conflicts with an iquisiorial system in principle (even if inquisitorial systems generally don't have grand juries in practice). Could you explain?
I'm getting way out of my depth here. My understanding has been, and seems to be corroborated by the Wikipedia article above, that the fifth amendments no-self-incrimination clause is usually interpreted in the context of an inquisitorial system - specifically the way the inquisitorial method was applied at Star Chamber.
IANAL, but the way I understand it is something like: You are a court, and you're trying to determine how the 5th amendment applies in some tricky case. The text itself might be ambiguous or unspecific in your case.
One way to approach that ambiguity is to look at the history of the amendment - why was it written, and given that, what is the most likely intended way to read it?
For the 5th amendment, the context is that the Court of Star Chamber used the inquisitive method, combining the search for truth with the force a court is able to apply to a defendant. In doing so, the Court of Star Chamber highlighted a flaw in the inquisitive method: Combining the right to apply force to its subjects with the job of determining truth created incentive for extensive abuse, as the court forced false testimonies out of its subjects.
Hence, the 5th amendments no-self-incrimination clause can be interpreted to exist to weaken the inquisitorial method in US courts, reinforcing the US commitment to an adversarial system instead.
IANAL, but the way I understand it is something like: You are a court, and you're trying to determine how the 5th amendment applies in some tricky case. The text itself might be ambiguous or unspecific in your case.
One way to approach that ambiguity is to look at the history of the amendment - why was it written, and given that, what is the most likely intended way to read it?
For the 5th amendment, the context is that the Court of Star Chamber used the inquisitive method, combining the search for truth with the force a court is able to apply to a defendant. In doing so, the Court of Star Chamber highlighted a flaw in the inquisitive method: Combining the right to apply force to its subjects with the job of determining truth created incentive for extensive abuse, as the court forced false testimonies out of its subjects.
Hence, the 5th amendments no-self-incrimination clause can be interpreted to exist to weaken the inquisitorial method in US courts, reinforcing the US commitment to an adversarial system instead.
But the police practice of collecting evidence (e.g. tricking people into giving confessions) seems completely at odds with their neutral investigator role inquisitorial justice.
The judicial branch is meant to be neutral judges - but police and prosecutors are not part of the judicial branch. In the case of prosecutors, their job is explicitly to not be neutral.
However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
But the judge isn't free to make their own investigations, and the police are part of the prosecuting apparatus. So they evidence presented is biased, and the system is adversarial not inquisitorial.
Sneaky questions versus outright lying? From what I've read, that's common practice for US police officers in suspect interviews.
Sneaky questions versus outright lying? From what I've read, that's common practice for US police officers in suspect interviews.
Well, the fifth element as a whole has a number of provisions. The popular clause against self-incrimination is but one of them.
It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now)
"The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now)
"The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
Precisely. The key short phrase is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
> Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable
How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?
How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?
here is great video explaining the importance of 5th amendment rights: https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ
there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
This is not a 5th amendment issue as much as not submitting your taxes is. You can do that and not be prosecuted under the original traffic offence but failing to keep track of who's driving is simply another offence.
...and people go to jail for lying about who was driving.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/85...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/85...
I live in the UK, but never understood this. What if you really, genuinely don't know who was driving the car at the time? Can you give a list of people who could have been driving it, to the best of your knowledge? After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours?
Germany handles this somewhat similar (the owner is supposed to know who's driving). It is possible to claim 'I have no idea', but the court is able to respond with 'Well, from now on you're documenting every single ride with your car for quite a while'. That means that every driver of this car now is required to document
- the current date
- the time you start the ride
- the license plate number
- the name of the driver
and immediately after finishing the ride
- the end of the ride
- the driver's signature
I personally would like to avoid that..
- the current date
- the time you start the ride
- the license plate number
- the name of the driver
and immediately after finishing the ride
- the end of the ride
- the driver's signature
I personally would like to avoid that..
I think this is quite a good example of why protections like the 5th amendment are important.
A person might be tempted - in such a case - to confess to the crime and take the fine simply in order to avoid getting entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare. And because of that the state is encouraged to threaten bureaucratic nightmare in order to elicit a confession.
Isn't this exactly the situation that protections against self-incrimination are designed to avoid?
A person might be tempted - in such a case - to confess to the crime and take the fine simply in order to avoid getting entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare. And because of that the state is encouraged to threaten bureaucratic nightmare in order to elicit a confession.
Isn't this exactly the situation that protections against self-incrimination are designed to avoid?
I'm confused. But then again, I know little/none about US laws. My naive understanding of the 5th is that you can remain quiet if you'd otherwise have to point at yourself (or your family?). If your coworker is the offender, can you plead the 5th?
If that's close enough: How is that a problem? Yes, people over here might just pay the fine (which is completely legal for a lot of cases: In all cases where the state doesn't care about the offender's identity).
But if the 5th only means that you're allowed to protect yourself (and yours), isn't it correct to pay? I currently parse your comment as "Wouldn't the people pay up if they are guilty in the first place?".
Not my native language.
If that's close enough: How is that a problem? Yes, people over here might just pay the fine (which is completely legal for a lot of cases: In all cases where the state doesn't care about the offender's identity).
But if the 5th only means that you're allowed to protect yourself (and yours), isn't it correct to pay? I currently parse your comment as "Wouldn't the people pay up if they are guilty in the first place?".
Not my native language.
If you are suspected of doing something illegal (speeding) because your car was photographed using photo radar, I'm reasonably sure the 5th amendment applies to the police or prosecutor asking you to answer any questions about that accusation.
The answer could be "X person borrowed my car", which isn't, itself necessarily covered, however the answer could be "I was driving my car at that time", which is definitely covered by the 5th amendment. Since one of the possible truthful responses counts as testimony against yourself, you don't have to answer the question at all, otherwise non-answers could be seen as implicit confessions.
The answer could be "X person borrowed my car", which isn't, itself necessarily covered, however the answer could be "I was driving my car at that time", which is definitely covered by the 5th amendment. Since one of the possible truthful responses counts as testimony against yourself, you don't have to answer the question at all, otherwise non-answers could be seen as implicit confessions.
> After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours?
The police's assumption is that as the car's owner you are responsible for its use, and have committed any offense involving it.
The police's assumption is that as the car's owner you are responsible for its use, and have committed any offense involving it.
Well, then if you don't mind me saying so, it's a dumb assumption. If say....you have 4 children, all insured on your car, and all of them refuse using it at the time(or maybe they all say they have used it, and all have driven on the road in question, or maybe the case is now year old and no one remembers who was driving that day), then how could you possibly, in good faith, be hold liable for this?
Your scenario seems a bit off. I imagine that if your kids did something stupid they should admit it - or they lose access to the car, period.
'A year old' case seems unlikely as well. I don't know about the UK laws, but over here most (all?) traffic violations expire after 3 month. There's no way to receive questions about a speeding ticket in the distant past..
'A year old' case seems unlikely as well. I don't know about the UK laws, but over here most (all?) traffic violations expire after 3 month. There's no way to receive questions about a speeding ticket in the distant past..
Are you suggesting collective punishment? How do you know who to revoke access to the car if they don't admit it?
Also how do they if they actually were the one that was speeding if more than one used the car on the same road.
Also how do they if they actually were the one that was speeding if more than one used the car on the same road.
Uhm. Yes. If I give access to 2.x tons of steel and someone abuses that, I'll revoke those privileges.
Collective punishment? You make it sound like Full Metal Jacket. I'd call it responsible behavior, protecting the person involved (unfit for driving if unable to admit errors) and myself (responsible for that heavy machine and the one whose trust was abused).
Obviously that doesn't apply to a random parking ticket or even a minor (slap on the wrist) speeding ticket. But accidents, running red lights, sever speeding? See above. Admit it or gtfo.
I really, really fail to see the reason for artificial "4 kids have access, they took turn driving and it was a year ago. What can these poor souls do?" arguments.
Collective punishment? You make it sound like Full Metal Jacket. I'd call it responsible behavior, protecting the person involved (unfit for driving if unable to admit errors) and myself (responsible for that heavy machine and the one whose trust was abused).
Obviously that doesn't apply to a random parking ticket or even a minor (slap on the wrist) speeding ticket. But accidents, running red lights, sever speeding? See above. Admit it or gtfo.
I really, really fail to see the reason for artificial "4 kids have access, they took turn driving and it was a year ago. What can these poor souls do?" arguments.
What is so hard about getting this, I really don't understand??
Wife takes car in the evening to do some shopping. She comes back, daughter takes the car to see some friends. They both drove on the same road. Month later, you get a letter saying that your car has been photographed doing 5mph over the limit on that day. The photo has a time stamp, but there's really no way to tell who was driving at that time, it could have been either your daughter or your wife.
What do you do? Do you pay the fine, knowing fully well that it wasn't you driving? Or do you tell your wife or daughter to take the points? At the same time, you are aware that naming the wrong person is actually a criminal offence, and since you are not 100% certain who was driving, how can you name anyone??
Why shouldn't you demand more evidence from the police? Why shouldn't you tell the police that you simply don't know and have no way of knowing who was using the car at the time? How can the police ticket anybody in this case, since they don't know who was driving?
I really, really fail to see why is it so hard to understand this. Actually, I bet this happens all the time, but people prefer to just pay the fine and be done with it, instead of fighting for their rights.
Wife takes car in the evening to do some shopping. She comes back, daughter takes the car to see some friends. They both drove on the same road. Month later, you get a letter saying that your car has been photographed doing 5mph over the limit on that day. The photo has a time stamp, but there's really no way to tell who was driving at that time, it could have been either your daughter or your wife.
What do you do? Do you pay the fine, knowing fully well that it wasn't you driving? Or do you tell your wife or daughter to take the points? At the same time, you are aware that naming the wrong person is actually a criminal offence, and since you are not 100% certain who was driving, how can you name anyone??
Why shouldn't you demand more evidence from the police? Why shouldn't you tell the police that you simply don't know and have no way of knowing who was using the car at the time? How can the police ticket anybody in this case, since they don't know who was driving?
I really, really fail to see why is it so hard to understand this. Actually, I bet this happens all the time, but people prefer to just pay the fine and be done with it, instead of fighting for their rights.
Well, all over this subthread I'm comparing it to my local laws and procedures. My answers are to be read in that context.
Over here you get a picture showing license plate and driver for most offenses (obviously not for parking tickets etc). Pointing out that the picture shows your wife or your daughter should be a trivial exercise.
But I understand that this might not be the case in your jurisdiction. Now, I hope you do get some evidence. The license plate at least?
If the car you own, that you are responsible for, is caught speeding, then there's no way in hell that you can shrug and say "Well.. Could've been anyone, really. The keys usually are in the lock, anyone could be the driver". That excuse seems mind-blowingly easy to exploit. Sure - you might not know who drove the car. In my world, that should have consequences for you, the owner (over here it's on a case by case basis, not a strict consequence).
My understanding so far is that someone wants to weasel out of that responsibility by paying a lawyer.. or teaching law. "If you cannot tell who drove it's your problem" is a crappy answer imo, because that can only lead to more surveillance. And there lies my problem, my issue.
Over here you get a picture showing license plate and driver for most offenses (obviously not for parking tickets etc). Pointing out that the picture shows your wife or your daughter should be a trivial exercise.
But I understand that this might not be the case in your jurisdiction. Now, I hope you do get some evidence. The license plate at least?
If the car you own, that you are responsible for, is caught speeding, then there's no way in hell that you can shrug and say "Well.. Could've been anyone, really. The keys usually are in the lock, anyone could be the driver". That excuse seems mind-blowingly easy to exploit. Sure - you might not know who drove the car. In my world, that should have consequences for you, the owner (over here it's on a case by case basis, not a strict consequence).
My understanding so far is that someone wants to weasel out of that responsibility by paying a lawyer.. or teaching law. "If you cannot tell who drove it's your problem" is a crappy answer imo, because that can only lead to more surveillance. And there lies my problem, my issue.
The only weaseling here is by the entity that would levy a fine/penalty without presenting sufficient evidence. Moreover, it is or should be a natural right for the accused to confront their accusers. Both of these important ideas are trampled if you accept violations issued by a machine.
Old, old news, but still funny IMHO:
http://arbroath.blogspot.it/2008/10/german-police-seek-speed...
http://arbroath.blogspot.it/2008/10/german-police-seek-speed...
The red light cameras here now started adding a photo of the driver side window to clarify this concern.
Ok, if the "year ago" scenario is far fetched, then I'm not even going to pretend I can remember when I was on this day a month ago,much less where my car was and who was driving it. Like I said, I am not required by law to keep a record of every single person using my car with the times they used it, so how can the law require me to produce said information? If me + 4 other people are insured on a vehicle, that means that possibly, it could be one out of 5 people driving it on a given day. I have no idea which one it was. What then?
I can only state what the law requires here, in DE. It requires you to know that (but admittedly you're usually going to get a picture with the first request for information, so it's mostly a matter of "Hey Joe, you've got a new mugshot!" and passing it to the right one of five) and has ways to "motivate" you if you fail this in a harsh case or repeatedly.
Which is fair in my book: You own the car, you are responsible for it. You're not on the hook for offenses that you didn't cause. But you were careless with your car if nobody steps forward after an incident.
Which is fair in my book: You own the car, you are responsible for it. You're not on the hook for offenses that you didn't cause. But you were careless with your car if nobody steps forward after an incident.
The link upthread mentions this. You ask for the photo. If the photo doesn't answer the question you can say you don't know, and ask for further evidence.
> then how could you possibly, in good faith, be hold liable for this?
Because you're the person responsible for the vehicle. That's literally what "responsible" means. It's your job as a car owner to ensure situations like this, where you don't know who was driving, don't happen.
Because you're the person responsible for the vehicle. That's literally what "responsible" means. It's your job as a car owner to ensure situations like this, where you don't know who was driving, don't happen.
I think that's one thing that's different vs the US. It's not the car being charged but an individual. That's the article's point that in the US they can't arbitrarily decide that someone was responsible for a crime like that, it's a direct violation of our requirement of due process and other proceedings.
But I am not required by law to keep the record of every single person driving that car, am I? Like I said, I can, to my best effort, know that on the evening of day X, 3 people drove my car, because they were all running errands. I don't know the exact times when they were all using it, but I am happy to supply the list of names.
> But I am not required by law to keep the record of every single person driving that car, am I?
No, but if you do not it's on your head, you are personally responsible for the use of your motor vehicle.
No, but if you do not it's on your head, you are personally responsible for the use of your motor vehicle.
it's reasonable to expect that a person know where their car is, but that does not amount to a legal requirement to do so, as you have admitted. In point of fact, you are not responsible for what other people do with your things. If you borrow a gun from me and shoot someone, I cannot be held liable for that shooting. Ownership may imply responsibility, but not liability.
Yeah, you left out a part of that.
"If you borrow a gun from me, and I don't know that you did, and you don't or won't tell me that you did... oh well. shrug" becomes your expectation of what should happen next.
"Oh sorry, you weren't driving your vehicle, and you have no idea who was, when it was involved in that accident. But you know it wasn't stolen. Guess there's nothing more we can do here, have a nice day."
"If you borrow a gun from me, and I don't know that you did, and you don't or won't tell me that you did... oh well. shrug" becomes your expectation of what should happen next.
"Oh sorry, you weren't driving your vehicle, and you have no idea who was, when it was involved in that accident. But you know it wasn't stolen. Guess there's nothing more we can do here, have a nice day."
You're arguing that because a gun or car is dangerous, ownership implies liability. There are few things which can be possessed which cannot be dangerous in the wrong hands, and a car is not actually intended for the purpose of murder, so one should probably not judge it by that standard. However, I did explicitly consider the case of an inherently dangerous object, so I cannot have left out that part as you suggest. I am really not sure what part of this concept you could possibly have an objection to. You know we're talking about a car, right, not a hydrogen bomb? Surely you can do better than that?
If someone is killed by your gun and you don't tell who, you will be jailed at least.
This is not phrased such that it can be said to be true or false. Yes, accessory to murder is a felony itself. Accessory to speeding is not, and being ignorant of the crime is the opposite of accessory. Would you like to rephrase your objections?
Car is dangerous. It's easy to kill someone by accident using car, just by pressing accelerator pedal long enough. Just compare number of killed or injured by a car and by a weapon. Car is still the most dangerous thing we have: http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-co... .
Shouldn't they need something more solid than an assumption to hit you with legal penalties?
> A person shall not be guilty of an offence ... if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
So yes, if you only had a list of names and couldn't do anything else, you could hand that over. The police could then require information from each of those people in the same way.
So yes, if you only had a list of names and couldn't do anything else, you could hand that over. The police could then require information from each of those people in the same way.
There is a statutory defence if you can't identify the driver "using reasonable diligence", but it's a very tough sell. It's certainly not as simple as "Well it could have been me or my wife, but neither of us can remember which." - you'd have to be able to demonstrate what attempts you had made to identify the driver and why these had all been unsuccessful. You are expected to know who is driving your car at a given time.
There was a case which was successfully defended, where the defendant asserted that the "reasonable diligence" requirement only applied after the request was received, and that there was no such requirement for you to retrospectively exercise such diligence. In other words, you must do everything you can to find out who was driving when you receive the notice, but that doesn't mean you have an obligation to keep records of who was driving in anticipation of such a request.
There was a case which was successfully defended, where the defendant asserted that the "reasonable diligence" requirement only applied after the request was received, and that there was no such requirement for you to retrospectively exercise such diligence. In other words, you must do everything you can to find out who was driving when you receive the notice, but that doesn't mean you have an obligation to keep records of who was driving in anticipation of such a request.
Interestingly that can also be used the other way in places with "point system" licenses (assuming the driver's face is not visible or it was a backside camera), some people will pay their ticket but (after having arranged it) "rat on" someone else who'll get their points docked.
The photographs literally don't matter. As long as the form has a name on it, and the fine is paid, it's not like they're going to look at the photo and do a match against the identified driver.
That's not the case in the UK where taking someone else's points is perjury and results in fines or jail time.
And the purpose of points systems is to cap out the number of infractions[0] a driver can perform regardless of their wealth. If you can shift the points loss, they can not fulfil their purpose.
[0] for infractions which are all short of an immediate license loss
[0] for infractions which are all short of an immediate license loss
But do they verify photos against claims? I'm certain they don't here in Australia (at least not 100%), because .. others .. have done this very thing when they were younger.
> The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
- Abraham Lincoln
While I can't say that I'm a fan of traffic cams, and I do appreciate that the author was vindicated in this circumstance, I like the idea of laws that are enforced for every single violation. Traffic law, and indeed most of our laws, seem to be enforced so inconsistently as to be laughable.
I'm sure there are instances where, financially speaking, you're better off to break the law and then just pay the fines if you get caught. Similar to when corporations break a law for years and eventually pay a fine that's less than the profit they made from breaking the law.
I think if the enforcement were more consistent, we'd end up with much better laws in the long run.
While I can't say that I'm a fan of traffic cams, and I do appreciate that the author was vindicated in this circumstance, I like the idea of laws that are enforced for every single violation. Traffic law, and indeed most of our laws, seem to be enforced so inconsistently as to be laughable.
I'm sure there are instances where, financially speaking, you're better off to break the law and then just pay the fines if you get caught. Similar to when corporations break a law for years and eventually pay a fine that's less than the profit they made from breaking the law.
I think if the enforcement were more consistent, we'd end up with much better laws in the long run.
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional Research Service can't even count them all. In other words, we are all breaking laws every day.[0]
Absolute law enforcement is a bad idea, for the fact that it provides no path towards civil disobedience[1]
Take for example the Texas "sodomy" law, that prevented homosexual couples from ingaging in sexual acts. If the law were practiced in absolute terms, we would have never had Lawrence v. Texas, and gay people would have remained criminals.
If I take a more generous stance towards your argument, and assume that you meant to say only traffic laws should be absolutely enforced, again I think it's a bad idea. It provides no way to argue circumstances in your case (such as "tree was blocking the red light").
In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
[0] https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
[1]http://archives.nwtrcc.org/omtfp/civilrole.html
Absolute law enforcement is a bad idea, for the fact that it provides no path towards civil disobedience[1]
Take for example the Texas "sodomy" law, that prevented homosexual couples from ingaging in sexual acts. If the law were practiced in absolute terms, we would have never had Lawrence v. Texas, and gay people would have remained criminals.
If I take a more generous stance towards your argument, and assume that you meant to say only traffic laws should be absolutely enforced, again I think it's a bad idea. It provides no way to argue circumstances in your case (such as "tree was blocking the red light").
In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
[0] https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
[1]http://archives.nwtrcc.org/omtfp/civilrole.html
> I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional Research Service can't even count them all. In other words, we are all breaking laws every day.
But the selective enforcement of laws is a disaster. As you say, we are all breaking laws every day. Which means, if any individual prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, they probably have the ability to charge you with something.
You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't like. That is truly dangerous.
But the selective enforcement of laws is a disaster. As you say, we are all breaking laws every day. Which means, if any individual prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, they probably have the ability to charge you with something.
You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't like. That is truly dangerous.
> You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't like. That is truly dangerous.
That's the way it already works in countries that don't respect rule of law, i.e. every non-Anglophone nation.
That's the way it already works in countries that don't respect rule of law, i.e. every non-Anglophone nation.
lol. you should test your theory in e.g. japan or hmmm saudi arabia.
one might even say that there are countries that follow the law ... religiously.
non anglophone countries also include most of europe. please put a little more thought into your racism. you get a point for originality but it's not nearly as entertaining when it's so weak logically.
one might even say that there are countries that follow the law ... religiously.
non anglophone countries also include most of europe. please put a little more thought into your racism. you get a point for originality but it's not nearly as entertaining when it's so weak logically.
> or hmmm saudi arabia.
The place where the rich have alcohol (illegal) fueled sex orgies (illegal) without any consequences?
The place where the rich have alcohol (illegal) fueled sex orgies (illegal) without any consequences?
rich people get away with illegal stuff in all countries, i don't think that's up for debate. i was talking about normal people that laws actually apply to.
but i mean, yeah, i guess you're technically correct, rich people break the law all the time in saudi arabia without any consequence. film at 11.
but i mean, yeah, i guess you're technically correct, rich people break the law all the time in saudi arabia without any consequence. film at 11.
I didn't say they didn't respect the law. I said they don't respect the rule of law. Rule of law is the idea that justice is not arbitrary, it does not stem from the whims of divine kings or power itself.
Authority must be legitimate, emanating from a constitution that was voted on by the people and exercised by representatives of the people. Not an unelected monarch or tyrant or oligarchy.
The English invented the concept and were the first to practice it. It's so infused in Anglo culture that violations of the principle are considered so beyond the pale that we call for, and often get, prison sentences for violators.
The book to read here is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BATKSIO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
Other nations have laws, but only Anglo nations are really ruled by them. Western Europe is an interesting case. The French constitution grants the President near-dictatorial emergency powers, which is how democracy and rule of law is commonly subverted in less-affluent nations. That the French are on their Fifth Republic should tell you how fragile the political institutions really are there.
The same is true of the rest of W Europe. They're heads and tails over the rest of the world including Russia and China. But you can't call yourselves a stable democracy if 70 years ago, you let fascists destroy your legislative systems so as to put your country to war, as Germany, Spain, and Italy did. How can you have rule of law if you let dictators decide what the law is?
The European Union is a grand experiment in finding Europe a babysitter so that doesn't happen again.
Authority must be legitimate, emanating from a constitution that was voted on by the people and exercised by representatives of the people. Not an unelected monarch or tyrant or oligarchy.
The English invented the concept and were the first to practice it. It's so infused in Anglo culture that violations of the principle are considered so beyond the pale that we call for, and often get, prison sentences for violators.
The book to read here is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BATKSIO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
Other nations have laws, but only Anglo nations are really ruled by them. Western Europe is an interesting case. The French constitution grants the President near-dictatorial emergency powers, which is how democracy and rule of law is commonly subverted in less-affluent nations. That the French are on their Fifth Republic should tell you how fragile the political institutions really are there.
The same is true of the rest of W Europe. They're heads and tails over the rest of the world including Russia and China. But you can't call yourselves a stable democracy if 70 years ago, you let fascists destroy your legislative systems so as to put your country to war, as Germany, Spain, and Italy did. How can you have rule of law if you let dictators decide what the law is?
The European Union is a grand experiment in finding Europe a babysitter so that doesn't happen again.
and if the bad law had to be enforced against someone powerful and/or popular it would make it easier to get repealed.
>In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.
It is, but that seems to be the point. The only way to highlight the absurdity of having so many laws is to enforce them so strictly that it creates a public backlash.
Put another way, the only reason our legislators were able to amass such a large amount of laws is because they are selectively enforced, or not enforced at all (for now).
It is, but that seems to be the point. The only way to highlight the absurdity of having so many laws is to enforce them so strictly that it creates a public backlash.
Put another way, the only reason our legislators were able to amass such a large amount of laws is because they are selectively enforced, or not enforced at all (for now).
> The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted is a blessing.
This is precisely because many of the uncountable laws are bad ones. I interpret Lincoln's quote to imply that if the bad ones were strictly enforced, it would quickly be realized how bad they are, and they would be repealed.
With the Texas Sodomy law - the reason the public at large was made aware of it was because it was enforced. If it were more strictly enforced, we would have been made aware sooner, and it likely would have been repealed.
Perhaps we have so many laws because we have so many bad ones. If all were enforced the bad ones would be pruned. Then perhaps congress could actually count them all.
This is precisely because many of the uncountable laws are bad ones. I interpret Lincoln's quote to imply that if the bad ones were strictly enforced, it would quickly be realized how bad they are, and they would be repealed.
With the Texas Sodomy law - the reason the public at large was made aware of it was because it was enforced. If it were more strictly enforced, we would have been made aware sooner, and it likely would have been repealed.
Perhaps we have so many laws because we have so many bad ones. If all were enforced the bad ones would be pruned. Then perhaps congress could actually count them all.
This is a tricky topic. I think I disagree with you. I'm certainly in agreement that there's ample evidence of justice being unevenly applied in this country, at least in part because there are humans doing the enforcing. Traffic cams are a great way to get around that -- in this case, it was the (human) bureaucracy that was unfair, not the camera.
However, the (main) reason I disagree is because, when you're dealing with people doing things that may not leave a paper trail, enforcement is contingent on supervision. It follows that constant enforcement is contingent on constant supervision, and I'd rather people just not get caught, to be honest. Otherwise we end up in a situation where the argument becomes, "Well of course we have to install tracking chips in all the cars, do you want people to be speeding and get away with it? Of course we have to let the government read our email, that's how people coordinate financial crimes!"
This is wandering a little farther into tinfoil-hat territory than I'd meant it to. My originally intended point was that it's a tough line to walk between consistent enforcement and pervasive enforcement.
However, the (main) reason I disagree is because, when you're dealing with people doing things that may not leave a paper trail, enforcement is contingent on supervision. It follows that constant enforcement is contingent on constant supervision, and I'd rather people just not get caught, to be honest. Otherwise we end up in a situation where the argument becomes, "Well of course we have to install tracking chips in all the cars, do you want people to be speeding and get away with it? Of course we have to let the government read our email, that's how people coordinate financial crimes!"
This is wandering a little farther into tinfoil-hat territory than I'd meant it to. My originally intended point was that it's a tough line to walk between consistent enforcement and pervasive enforcement.
> It follows that constant enforcement is contingent on constant supervision
I think I've found that it's neither necessary nor sufficient. Constant enforcement just means that you give the ticket no matter who you stopped.
I think I've found that it's neither necessary nor sufficient. Constant enforcement just means that you give the ticket no matter who you stopped.
My understanding is that this is where it runs afoul of that whole criminal vs civil distinction.
To do what you want, the law in question must be a criminal law, since civil law requires some direct measurable harm caused by the action to be applicable - and it would be hard to demonstrate direct harm from someone blasting through a red light at an empty intersection.
So, you make it criminal law. But that raises the standard of proof significantly - you can no longer go on preponderance of evidence, but you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cameras, in most cases, simply don't provide enough evidence to meet that bar (not the least because it's hard to see who's driving the car), so in practice, it would mean that most such cases would go nowhere.
You also don't want to say that people have committed a misdemeanor for something as trivial as parking wrongly, because there are some long-term consequences of this.
Hence, they invent things like "civil violation of criminal laws", such that the standard of proof is closer to that of civil law, but they don't need to prove direct harm - an action can be illegal in and of itself, regardless of consequences. This is justified on the grounds that penalties are "merely" fines, not imprisonment. Of course, the fine can still be very large - and larger still if you're unable to pay, and they start charging you interest. At some point, the interest will cross the line where you may actually get arrested for not paying it, too. All stemming from that initial lack of due process.
To do what you want, the law in question must be a criminal law, since civil law requires some direct measurable harm caused by the action to be applicable - and it would be hard to demonstrate direct harm from someone blasting through a red light at an empty intersection.
So, you make it criminal law. But that raises the standard of proof significantly - you can no longer go on preponderance of evidence, but you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cameras, in most cases, simply don't provide enough evidence to meet that bar (not the least because it's hard to see who's driving the car), so in practice, it would mean that most such cases would go nowhere.
You also don't want to say that people have committed a misdemeanor for something as trivial as parking wrongly, because there are some long-term consequences of this.
Hence, they invent things like "civil violation of criminal laws", such that the standard of proof is closer to that of civil law, but they don't need to prove direct harm - an action can be illegal in and of itself, regardless of consequences. This is justified on the grounds that penalties are "merely" fines, not imprisonment. Of course, the fine can still be very large - and larger still if you're unable to pay, and they start charging you interest. At some point, the interest will cross the line where you may actually get arrested for not paying it, too. All stemming from that initial lack of due process.
> "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly"
This is an approach that I like for most bad laws (though noting that its attribution to Lincoln is questionable). That said, this isn't a case of the law being good or bad, but about the enforcement being bad. Most people would agree that traffic lights are a net good, and that running a traffic light in a way that causes harm would be a bad act, ergo, laws against running traffic lights seem to be overall good on balance.
Moreover, it is logical to assume that if people were just running traffic lights whenever they wanted to, that the net result would be in mistakes that would ultimately result in harm.
But if you're at a 5 minute red light in the middle of the night with a wife who is in labor and nobody else is around, would you support enforcement of that law against the man who runs that light? Nobody was harmed, no damages were caused, and waiting for the light might potentially have caused a medical issue for which the driver could have sued.
The point of the article isn't that "red lights are bad" or that "running red lights is good", but the more nuanced take that "the enforcement of red light laws as both a civil and criminal act while adhering to the tenets and protections of neither is bad", which is (at least taking the article on faith) correct, as applied.
At its core, the author does themselves a mild disservice by closing with the standing argument. Yes, I can't sue you for harms you didn't cause, and nor can I sue you for harms you might have caused, but didn't. Moreover, it is true that the state similarly has no standing for suits in which no harms were caused, but that is not the core of the wrong he is fighting.
This is an approach that I like for most bad laws (though noting that its attribution to Lincoln is questionable). That said, this isn't a case of the law being good or bad, but about the enforcement being bad. Most people would agree that traffic lights are a net good, and that running a traffic light in a way that causes harm would be a bad act, ergo, laws against running traffic lights seem to be overall good on balance.
Moreover, it is logical to assume that if people were just running traffic lights whenever they wanted to, that the net result would be in mistakes that would ultimately result in harm.
But if you're at a 5 minute red light in the middle of the night with a wife who is in labor and nobody else is around, would you support enforcement of that law against the man who runs that light? Nobody was harmed, no damages were caused, and waiting for the light might potentially have caused a medical issue for which the driver could have sued.
The point of the article isn't that "red lights are bad" or that "running red lights is good", but the more nuanced take that "the enforcement of red light laws as both a civil and criminal act while adhering to the tenets and protections of neither is bad", which is (at least taking the article on faith) correct, as applied.
At its core, the author does themselves a mild disservice by closing with the standing argument. Yes, I can't sue you for harms you didn't cause, and nor can I sue you for harms you might have caused, but didn't. Moreover, it is true that the state similarly has no standing for suits in which no harms were caused, but that is not the core of the wrong he is fighting.
There's a counter argument that in a situation where your wife is in labour and you're stuck at a red light, you made a conscious analysis of the risks and decided that a $100 ticket was an acceptable price to pay to get your wife to hospital in time. You elected to break the law and so the ticket should stand.
Which may result in a disenfranchisement of the poor.
A friend of mine (who is brilliant, but also an asshole) once shared with me a part of his philosophy on life. This occurred as we were staying in adjacent hotel rooms. There was an after-wedding party going on in his hotel room, and he lights up a cigarette. I mention to him "Hey, you know there's no smoking in DC hotels, right?" to which he responds "Yeah -- it's allowed." Pretty confident he was wrong, I kept at it, until he pointed out that it cost $150. Not understanding, I questioned him, until he broke it down -- it's not allowed, but for violating the rule, the fine is $150. For him, celebrating the wedding of our close mutual friend was a festive occasion, and worth paying the $150 for.
In short, he had deemed that the fine was not a fine, but the cost, and he was willing to pay it.
If laws are prohibitively expensive for the poor, but merely 'a cost' for the more well to do, then we run the risk of jeopardizing the rule of law entirely, and begs the question of whether or not the law needs to exist if nobody is harmed by its selective infraction. Liability already covers means for reliably determining who is at fault, so where there is incident, the person running the light can be considered at fault. Otherwise, it seems to be just a system for generating fees, and largely from the hoi polloi.
A friend of mine (who is brilliant, but also an asshole) once shared with me a part of his philosophy on life. This occurred as we were staying in adjacent hotel rooms. There was an after-wedding party going on in his hotel room, and he lights up a cigarette. I mention to him "Hey, you know there's no smoking in DC hotels, right?" to which he responds "Yeah -- it's allowed." Pretty confident he was wrong, I kept at it, until he pointed out that it cost $150. Not understanding, I questioned him, until he broke it down -- it's not allowed, but for violating the rule, the fine is $150. For him, celebrating the wedding of our close mutual friend was a festive occasion, and worth paying the $150 for.
In short, he had deemed that the fine was not a fine, but the cost, and he was willing to pay it.
If laws are prohibitively expensive for the poor, but merely 'a cost' for the more well to do, then we run the risk of jeopardizing the rule of law entirely, and begs the question of whether or not the law needs to exist if nobody is harmed by its selective infraction. Liability already covers means for reliably determining who is at fault, so where there is incident, the person running the light can be considered at fault. Otherwise, it seems to be just a system for generating fees, and largely from the hoi polloi.
Meanwhile, Germany has photo-radar, but the German police MUST issue the ticket to the driver of the vehicle at the time. Therefore, they take pictures of the front of the car, and the back if needed.
that approach comes with its own problems regarding privacy.
Ironically, Germany is quite strong on privacy laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz
I was with the author until reading this unfortunate quote:
> Traffic camera laws are popular in part because they appeal to a law-and-order impulse. If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses.
This is an unfair rhetorical attack that trivializes the motivations for necessary enforcement of traffic laws. Whether or not you are a fan of traffic cameras, traffic violations are in fact serious and should not be brushed off. The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30 in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next.
I honestly do think people should be ticketed for 30 in a 25. It's not a trivial laughing matter. It always dismays me to see people downplaying speeding. 30 vs 25 will increase your stopping distance more than enough to kill a child. Yet, we nonchalantly think it's cool as a society to blow through red lights and everyone speeds. The author clearly separates "the slightly more respectable offense of owning a speeding vehicle" from "armed robbery, drug dealing, and other misdeeds". Would the author feel that speeding is any more respectable than armed robbery if a speeding driver killed their kids?
I agree that traffic cameras are a poor way to enforce these laws, but I want to point out that they really do need enforcing and shouldn't be trivialized.
> Traffic camera laws are popular in part because they appeal to a law-and-order impulse. If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses.
This is an unfair rhetorical attack that trivializes the motivations for necessary enforcement of traffic laws. Whether or not you are a fan of traffic cameras, traffic violations are in fact serious and should not be brushed off. The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30 in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next.
I honestly do think people should be ticketed for 30 in a 25. It's not a trivial laughing matter. It always dismays me to see people downplaying speeding. 30 vs 25 will increase your stopping distance more than enough to kill a child. Yet, we nonchalantly think it's cool as a society to blow through red lights and everyone speeds. The author clearly separates "the slightly more respectable offense of owning a speeding vehicle" from "armed robbery, drug dealing, and other misdeeds". Would the author feel that speeding is any more respectable than armed robbery if a speeding driver killed their kids?
I agree that traffic cameras are a poor way to enforce these laws, but I want to point out that they really do need enforcing and shouldn't be trivialized.
In the US in 2013, there were 236 pedestrian deaths of children younger than 14. Thats under 5% of pedestrian fatalities, and the vast majority of pedestrian fatalities are in the dark, with half involving alcohol.
There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph. This doesn't seem like as big an issue as you're making it out to be.
Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold up - people don't go 45 in a 25 on a regular basis. Almost every driver goes 5-10 miles above the speed limit on the highway and 0-5 miles above everywhere else. The limits are designed with this in mind.
These things can get really personal, but I don't believe the law should.
Nobody thinks it's cool to run through a red light. People go through yellows because that is legal to do.
There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph. This doesn't seem like as big an issue as you're making it out to be.
Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold up - people don't go 45 in a 25 on a regular basis. Almost every driver goes 5-10 miles above the speed limit on the highway and 0-5 miles above everywhere else. The limits are designed with this in mind.
These things can get really personal, but I don't believe the law should.
Nobody thinks it's cool to run through a red light. People go through yellows because that is legal to do.
This is a reasonable reply and I appreciate the very relevant data points.
I think you're correct that speed limits are designed knowing that most people will exceed them slightly. I'm curious if there are any studies that have addressed this? Eg. traffic surveys where they either raised or lowered a posted speed limit -- how much impact does that have on behavior?
I think you're correct that speed limits are designed knowing that most people will exceed them slightly. I'm curious if there are any studies that have addressed this? Eg. traffic surveys where they either raised or lowered a posted speed limit -- how much impact does that have on behavior?
Sure. https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
Key points:
Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26 km/h) at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist's speeds.
Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.
Key points:
Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26 km/h) at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist's speeds.
Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.
Or another way to state this is that people generally drive at a speed they think is reasonable given the road conditions and mostly ignore posted speed limits altogether.
No surprise to me, many states didn't have speed limits outside of town at all in the US until the federal government withheld highway funding until they posted speed limits. That's the reason the 55mph highway speed limit was originally established. It's also the same method by which we forced the drinking age from 18 to 21.
Given a population of people, some will be reasonable in their behavior, some will not be. Setting limits on that behavior is more of a signal (or suggestion) than anything that really changes how people behave in the large. To consider otherwise is to be naive of the reality.
Fun story, data shows that raising highway speed limits results in less accidents, but the accidents that do occur result in more fatalities.
No surprise to me, many states didn't have speed limits outside of town at all in the US until the federal government withheld highway funding until they posted speed limits. That's the reason the 55mph highway speed limit was originally established. It's also the same method by which we forced the drinking age from 18 to 21.
Given a population of people, some will be reasonable in their behavior, some will not be. Setting limits on that behavior is more of a signal (or suggestion) than anything that really changes how people behave in the large. To consider otherwise is to be naive of the reality.
Fun story, data shows that raising highway speed limits results in less accidents, but the accidents that do occur result in more fatalities.
I read their methodology[1] to determine when they measured the speeds, but it wasn't very clear when they did. However, I think a reasonable interpretation of their wording is that they measured just before and just after the change.
In my opinion there is a problem with this approach, in that many motorists will likely pay little attention to signs when going their usual routes, as they already know them all. If a speed limit is changed it may therefore take some time for people to notice that that has happened. To measure the full impact of the change, it seems the measurement would have to be taken a few months after the change.
[1] https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/method.html
In my opinion there is a problem with this approach, in that many motorists will likely pay little attention to signs when going their usual routes, as they already know them all. If a speed limit is changed it may therefore take some time for people to notice that that has happened. To measure the full impact of the change, it seems the measurement would have to be taken a few months after the change.
[1] https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/method.html
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...
Sorry about that - this the full study, not just the report.
Sorry about that - this the full study, not just the report.
Iirc, its related to the design of the road.
Think of the speed limit as a fine tuning lever and the road itself as the control. If you slap a 30 mph limit on one of those 6-lane boulevards that you see a lot in Florida, there's little change. Likewise, the 70-75 limits on I95 in South Carolina don't really have a material impact on the traffic flow.
Road engineers can slow a road down with all sorts of techniques, and they absolutely do studies and instrument the road to tweak the design.
Think of the speed limit as a fine tuning lever and the road itself as the control. If you slap a 30 mph limit on one of those 6-lane boulevards that you see a lot in Florida, there's little change. Likewise, the 70-75 limits on I95 in South Carolina don't really have a material impact on the traffic flow.
Road engineers can slow a road down with all sorts of techniques, and they absolutely do studies and instrument the road to tweak the design.
> This is a reasonable reply and I appreciate the very relevant data points.
Faith in humanity restored. Thanks, this line made my day. Hope I can have the to use that same spirit today.
Faith in humanity restored. Thanks, this line made my day. Hope I can have the to use that same spirit today.
> People go through yellows because that is legal to do.
IIRC (and this may vary state to state), it actually isn't legal to go thru a yellow. From what I recall (and I'll admit I may be wrong), the actual law is that if you are before the "stop line" or intersection, and the light turns yellow, you are supposed to come to a complete stop. If, however, you are already in the intersection (your front bumper is beyond that "line"), you can proceed with caution, provided you clear the intersection before the light turns red.
Again - I may be wrong about this, and concede that it could vary across jurisdictions.
IIRC (and this may vary state to state), it actually isn't legal to go thru a yellow. From what I recall (and I'll admit I may be wrong), the actual law is that if you are before the "stop line" or intersection, and the light turns yellow, you are supposed to come to a complete stop. If, however, you are already in the intersection (your front bumper is beyond that "line"), you can proceed with caution, provided you clear the intersection before the light turns red.
Again - I may be wrong about this, and concede that it could vary across jurisdictions.
> Almost every driver goes 5-10 miles above the speed limit on the highway
That's really only the case in states that have kept their NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) era laws on the books. In states that have speed limits 75 mph or above, you're not going to find traffic flowing at 85 to 90 mph. Conversely, in states where they still have large sections of highways still posted at 55 mph, you will routinely see traffic flowing at 70 to 80 mph.
> and 0-5 miles above everywhere else.
I have seen plenty of instances where people drive at 35 to 40 mph in 25 mph zones. These are roadways that were formerly posted at 35 mph, but the town, for some odd reason decided to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph.
That's really only the case in states that have kept their NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) era laws on the books. In states that have speed limits 75 mph or above, you're not going to find traffic flowing at 85 to 90 mph. Conversely, in states where they still have large sections of highways still posted at 55 mph, you will routinely see traffic flowing at 70 to 80 mph.
> and 0-5 miles above everywhere else.
I have seen plenty of instances where people drive at 35 to 40 mph in 25 mph zones. These are roadways that were formerly posted at 35 mph, but the town, for some odd reason decided to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph.
A 40ish% increase in risk cannot simply be handwaved away. That's huge.
I think what he meant is that pedestrian child deaths number (especially in the conditions that the only problem was speeding) is so small in comparison to total traffic child deaths that increasing it by 40% percent is still almost nothing.
So the argument "don't speed no matter what or you might kill a child that would otherwise not die" while technically true is not particularly strong.
So the argument "don't speed no matter what or you might kill a child that would otherwise not die" while technically true is not particularly strong.
I think the existence of speed cameras and red light cameras are because it was the problem that could be automated easily. Automatically detecting a car failing to yield to pedestrians, backing up on freeways, etc, until recently was too difficult of a problem to automate at scale. I think that has probably changed. If someone is breaking one of these things it is a proxy for other dangerous driving behavior.
The flip side to this is instead of being used to give tickets this technology will be used to drive the car. On the other hand, now drivers are being invisibly ticketed in the form of higher insurance rates by their car insurance companies collecting data on their driving behavior, and they don't even know it.
If you run down the street waving a gun at people, there is a high chance the police are just going to shoot you. Yet, if you have a car and pedestrians or bicyclists didn't get hit because they dodged you, it is considered normal behavior. It isn't.
The flip side to this is instead of being used to give tickets this technology will be used to drive the car. On the other hand, now drivers are being invisibly ticketed in the form of higher insurance rates by their car insurance companies collecting data on their driving behavior, and they don't even know it.
If you run down the street waving a gun at people, there is a high chance the police are just going to shoot you. Yet, if you have a car and pedestrians or bicyclists didn't get hit because they dodged you, it is considered normal behavior. It isn't.
I think this analysis (without any citations) is like big O notation. Sure, 17% is not that large compared to 12%, except there's a hidden constant: the value of life, which makes that 5% quite significant.
If you can show that bringing the speed limit down to 20 from 25 will save lives, I'll get on board.
I don't think it will, though - the data I have read says it will have little to no effect, and actually could have a negative effect. Most residential limits are already abnormally low in terms of safety from a traffic engineering perspective.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...
I don't think it will, though - the data I have read says it will have little to no effect, and actually could have a negative effect. Most residential limits are already abnormally low in terms of safety from a traffic engineering perspective.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...
While you're talking about speed limits, my post was about actual car speeds, and how a difference of 5% (from your data) means a great deal when it refers to your survival chances.
> There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph.
> There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12% at 25 mph.
While I understand that, I wasn't just talking about that statistic independently. I was responding to a person who brought up the 'think of the children' argument and isolating them as a smaller group. The total number of fatalities amongst children we're talking about within that speed is quite small and potentially 0.
That's why I brought up the effectiveness of change in posted speed.
That's why I brought up the effectiveness of change in posted speed.
The chance of dying from being hit by a car at different speeds is not the only factor, when you are going 20, you will have more time to react, the person about to be hit has more time to react and the distance you'll travel while braking is less.
So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
> So it would probably save lives, and while 1 or 2% doesn't seem like much, the parents of those childs would beg to differ.
Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. While I certainly sympathize with those parents this is the absolute wrong way to go about implementing policy or law. Most of US law that has eroded our rights over the years has been enacted by similar emotional arguments. I prefer my policymakers to be sober dispassionate people who look at raw data to make as an informed decision as possible.
Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN. While I certainly sympathize with those parents this is the absolute wrong way to go about implementing policy or law. Most of US law that has eroded our rights over the years has been enacted by similar emotional arguments. I prefer my policymakers to be sober dispassionate people who look at raw data to make as an informed decision as possible.
> Not sure if an appeal to emotion is going to work too well on HN.
Killing a human being is not the same as killing a process. We live in a society because it's safer. We have a constitution, rights, and laws to protect us (at least in theory). The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. I don't see how saving lives makes a poor heuristic for implementing laws.
Killing a human being is not the same as killing a process. We live in a society because it's safer. We have a constitution, rights, and laws to protect us (at least in theory). The optimal law would save as many lives as possible. I don't see how saving lives makes a poor heuristic for implementing laws.
>The optimal law would save as many lives as possible.
If that were true, cars would be illegal.
We're operating in a framework of likely accidents, benefit to society and overall cost. There is an optimal law that saves as many laws as reasonably possible, and in most cases it has already been implemented and is being enforced. Where it has not or is not, sure.
If that were true, cars would be illegal.
We're operating in a framework of likely accidents, benefit to society and overall cost. There is an optimal law that saves as many laws as reasonably possible, and in most cases it has already been implemented and is being enforced. Where it has not or is not, sure.
My younger brother was hit by a car when crossing the street. Although he didn't die, he sure came close and was in a coma for over a week.
The driver was doing 40 in a 30 (mph) and was on his cell phone.
I still don't think every traffic law should be modified to prevent this scenario.
It's silly to emotionally invest in the law. Preventing all traffic deaths is just not realistic currently.
The driver was doing 40 in a 30 (mph) and was on his cell phone.
I still don't think every traffic law should be modified to prevent this scenario.
It's silly to emotionally invest in the law. Preventing all traffic deaths is just not realistic currently.
"was on his cell phone" is a much more important detail than the driver's speed.
But with so few deaths overall it does become insignificant.
I believe speeding is very much a laughing matter and overblown as a justification for tickets and revenue (not evn considering traffic cameras). Speed limits are arbitrary low and cause traffic and accidents due to the resulting congestion. There has been studies stating that (on the highway) a speeding driver is usually safer than someone driving under the speed limit.
Also to address the stopping for children element. You seem to think stopping distances carry the full force of the starting speed. If an obstacle is ahead and im going 5 mph faster than the speed limit. Even if I hit the obstruction, its not like im going 30mph when I hit it. If I could have stopped at 25, but going 30 caused me to hit something I would only collide at 2-5 mph at best.
The difference in stopping distance between 25 and 30 feet must be a few feet. Lets not act like you would hit and kill the kid cause you were driving 30mph when you started stopping.
Also to address the stopping for children element. You seem to think stopping distances carry the full force of the starting speed. If an obstacle is ahead and im going 5 mph faster than the speed limit. Even if I hit the obstruction, its not like im going 30mph when I hit it. If I could have stopped at 25, but going 30 caused me to hit something I would only collide at 2-5 mph at best.
The difference in stopping distance between 25 and 30 feet must be a few feet. Lets not act like you would hit and kill the kid cause you were driving 30mph when you started stopping.
Momentum is an unintuitive thing. See, for example http://www.brake.org.uk/events/15-facts-a-resources/facts/12...:
A vehicle travelling at 20mph (32km/h) would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car-lengths in front. The same vehicle travelling at 25mph (40km/h) would not be able to stop in time, and would hit the child at 18mph (29km/h). This is roughly the same impact as a child falling from an upstairs window. The diagram below illustrates the impact at various speeds. The greater the impact speed, the greater the chance of death. A pedestrian hit at 30mph has a very significant one in five chance of being killed. This rises significantly to a one in three chance if they are hit at 35mph
Or the charts here:
https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_S...
A vehicle travelling at 20mph (32km/h) would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car-lengths in front. The same vehicle travelling at 25mph (40km/h) would not be able to stop in time, and would hit the child at 18mph (29km/h). This is roughly the same impact as a child falling from an upstairs window. The diagram below illustrates the impact at various speeds. The greater the impact speed, the greater the chance of death. A pedestrian hit at 30mph has a very significant one in five chance of being killed. This rises significantly to a one in three chance if they are hit at 35mph
Or the charts here:
https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_S...
That's assuming a 1.5s reaction time. Surely that's quite slow and accounts for the bulk of the difference.
The reaction times quoted at the link associated with the main quote are actually: a reaction time of 0.67 seconds, which assumes the driver is alert, concentrating and not impaired. Driving when tired, distracted or impaired significantly increases reaction times, so the thinking distances above should be regarded as minimums.
The NHTSA assumes 1.5 seconds because: A typical reaction time to perceive a threat such as a deer or a child running into the road is about 3/4 second, and then you add another 3/4 second to decide to act and move your foot to the brake pedal. I agree it's unintuitively long, but I also know that reaction times have always been slower that I think they are when they've been tested...
The NHTSA assumes 1.5 seconds because: A typical reaction time to perceive a threat such as a deer or a child running into the road is about 3/4 second, and then you add another 3/4 second to decide to act and move your foot to the brake pedal. I agree it's unintuitively long, but I also know that reaction times have always been slower that I think they are when they've been tested...
1.5sec?!? You've got to be senile and on your phone to pull that off.
The braking distance isn't linear with speed. It goes with the kinetic energy of the vehicle which is proportional to speed squared.
A vehicle traveling at 30 mph has about 40% more kinetic energy than the same vehicle traveling at 25 mph.
It will also close more of the available braking distance during the reaction period (only 20%, but that's a lot).
So the collision speed for the higher initial speed will be greater than the difference in the initial speeds, not lesser.
That said, doing other things to improve pedestrian safety are likely to be more effective than sweating the posted speed limit.
A vehicle traveling at 30 mph has about 40% more kinetic energy than the same vehicle traveling at 25 mph.
It will also close more of the available braking distance during the reaction period (only 20%, but that's a lot).
So the collision speed for the higher initial speed will be greater than the difference in the initial speeds, not lesser.
That said, doing other things to improve pedestrian safety are likely to be more effective than sweating the posted speed limit.
In my home town, speed limits are lowered during winter, because that lowers emissions (from diesel cars, as well as asphalt dust), and that literally makes fewer people die from bad air.
In this case, it has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. But if you drive over the posted limit, you are killing slightly more (fractional) people than if you keep to the limit.
In this case, it has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. But if you drive over the posted limit, you are killing slightly more (fractional) people than if you keep to the limit.
> There has been studies stating that (on the highway) a speeding driver is usually safer than someone driving under the speed limit.
I doubt that would be true if no one was speeding. I also doubt that self driving cars will be speeding (considering liability) so it would be interesting to se how the result of such studies change once self driving vehicles are commonplace.
I doubt that would be true if no one was speeding. I also doubt that self driving cars will be speeding (considering liability) so it would be interesting to se how the result of such studies change once self driving vehicles are commonplace.
Doesn't "when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones" mean that no one else was around [to get hurt/injured]?
I don't think he's trivializing traffic laws. They have a place and a purpose. If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement. If only we would use "common sense". Using cameras to get around no eye witnesses is about raising punishment and revenue above public safety unless you don't enforce the ticket unless another person or vehicle is visible on the picture. But then we are throwing due process out the window when we can't question our accusor (witness) and see into the source code etc. That's not something to trivialize.
(Don't get mean wrong, I wish there were more officers to write tickets to people who go 30 down the residential home lined streets where I live. 30 is to fast for conditions as a child could be unseen behind an object near the street or run out of a house or building into the street and 30 would be too fast to do a vehicle in time.)
I don't think he's trivializing traffic laws. They have a place and a purpose. If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement. If only we would use "common sense". Using cameras to get around no eye witnesses is about raising punishment and revenue above public safety unless you don't enforce the ticket unless another person or vehicle is visible on the picture. But then we are throwing due process out the window when we can't question our accusor (witness) and see into the source code etc. That's not something to trivialize.
(Don't get mean wrong, I wish there were more officers to write tickets to people who go 30 down the residential home lined streets where I live. 30 is to fast for conditions as a child could be unseen behind an object near the street or run out of a house or building into the street and 30 would be too fast to do a vehicle in time.)
Obviously, if no one is truly around, then speeding is less dangerous. However, it is the person or car you don't see that you are most in danger of hitting, so I don't think allowing people to ignore traffic laws when no one is around is a good public policy.
Accidents happen when people make mistakes. One of those mistakes is thinking no one is around when they actually are.
This is the same thinking behind "Well, is yeah I drove drunk, but I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, so what is the problem?"
Yes, you didn't cause an accident this time. But you took a risk that society deems is too great, so we need to discourage the behavior even when nothing bad happens.
Accidents happen when people make mistakes. One of those mistakes is thinking no one is around when they actually are.
This is the same thinking behind "Well, is yeah I drove drunk, but I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, so what is the problem?"
Yes, you didn't cause an accident this time. But you took a risk that society deems is too great, so we need to discourage the behavior even when nothing bad happens.
> If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement.
If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?
I find this to be short sighted. Someone might be around, and they could be the fatality of the accident. Or perhaps accidents could be avoided if reckless drivers are left without permits for offenses not involving casualties (preemptive measure).
If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?
I find this to be short sighted. Someone might be around, and they could be the fatality of the accident. Or perhaps accidents could be avoided if reckless drivers are left without permits for offenses not involving casualties (preemptive measure).
I agree that camera ticketing removes a key constitutional protection, and I don't mean to detract from the issue raised in the article. The issue with "if no one is around they don't need enforcement" is that it implies that it's ok for drivers to use their judgement to determine if they can safely exceed the speed limit in a given context. How does the driver truly know that "no one is around"? We can't allow this to be a defense, "I was doing 45 because the streets were empty so it was perfectly safe..."
The purpose of a municipality displaying posted speed limits is that they have made a determination of what the safe speed is for that area, given road conditions, visibility, and proximity to pedestrians or bicyclists or road hazards. If this is too slow for you, then lobby to change the posted speed limit, but don't just speed because you think it's safe.
The purpose of a municipality displaying posted speed limits is that they have made a determination of what the safe speed is for that area, given road conditions, visibility, and proximity to pedestrians or bicyclists or road hazards. If this is too slow for you, then lobby to change the posted speed limit, but don't just speed because you think it's safe.
Unless you have a clear view with nothing that can obstruct your vision of a small child it's hard to be sure there's no kids. People make mistakes and I'd prefer if people just go 25 through neighborhoods.
Yes. Road conditions, visibility conditions, surroundings, road design, etc all come into play. I've yet to see a speed camera on a residential street. They are usually on highways. I would bet there would be out cry from the people who live on the street (most likely they don't or no longer have younger children) that want to go 30 to get to their homes.
> I've yet to see a speed camera on a residential street.
And I see them all the time. You'd lose your bet.
And I see them all the time. You'd lose your bet.
[deleted]
You make the classic mistake of equating "exceeding arbitrary speed limits" with "killing people's children".
People should be punished for doing harm, not for exceeding arbitrary limits.
If you run someone over, damage someone's property, etc. as a result of your speeding, then the speeding can be taken into consideration. Otherwise it's just needless punishment of people who've done no harm.
People should be punished for doing harm, not for exceeding arbitrary limits.
If you run someone over, damage someone's property, etc. as a result of your speeding, then the speeding can be taken into consideration. Otherwise it's just needless punishment of people who've done no harm.
Cars going too fast in town, even if they aren't killing children, intimidate pedestrians and cyclists. Speeding cars muscle people not in cars out of the street. You can't also predict bad luck. There's always a change that a drunk stumbles in the street or a dog sprints across. Slower drivers may be able to stop in time, faster drivers won't. Plus, it's bad form, driving too fast for conditions is uncivilized and sets a bad example.
Cars could go faster on highways as long as they're respectful of other drivers who might not go as fast, why not. But driving too fast in town is criminal, just as bad as waving your rifle around when going hunting.
And to be clear, drivers are bad judges of what constitutes a safe speed. fwiw, it's often much lower than the speed limit.
Cars could go faster on highways as long as they're respectful of other drivers who might not go as fast, why not. But driving too fast in town is criminal, just as bad as waving your rifle around when going hunting.
And to be clear, drivers are bad judges of what constitutes a safe speed. fwiw, it's often much lower than the speed limit.
I wonder, could you extend that argument to taking explosives onto a plane? If you don't set them off, then no harm has been done but if you do and everyone dies except yourself by some miracle, then you should be punished...
Yes, you can extend the argument to everything. Though clearly it gets more controversial the further you extend it.
I don't personally think I should be punished for trying to move my explosives via an aeroplane just because you are afraid that some people might want to blow up the aeroplane.
I don't personally think I should be punished for trying to move my explosives via an aeroplane just because you are afraid that some people might want to blow up the aeroplane.
> I don't personally think I should be punished for trying to move my explosives via an aeroplane
Are we talking about a passenger airplane, or a specifically chartered flight to move said explosives where everyone onboard has consented to the risk?
Because if it's the former, then your views are insane.
Are we talking about a passenger airplane, or a specifically chartered flight to move said explosives where everyone onboard has consented to the risk?
Because if it's the former, then your views are insane.
So you should be able to order a 6 year old to stand in front of a speeding train and jump aside before it hits them. If they jump aside in time, no harm done and you should not be prosecuted.
When debating real-worth ethics, "What if I take your argument to an absurdly[1] extreme conclusion?" is really a null argument. This argument can always be made regardless of the real claim being made, and is therefore argumentatively irrelevant.
I just want to re-point out that in a mere 4 messages we started from "speeding should only be penalized if it actually harms someone" and got to "why can't you order a 6 year-old to stand in front of a train and jump out of the way".
[1]: This word is not extraneous. There is a form of extreme-based argument that is not useless, but one must be able to tie the argument to a reasonable claim that the extreme may actually occur. This is not one of those cases. There is no chance of people ordering children to stand in front of trains.
I just want to re-point out that in a mere 4 messages we started from "speeding should only be penalized if it actually harms someone" and got to "why can't you order a 6 year-old to stand in front of a train and jump out of the way".
[1]: This word is not extraneous. There is a form of extreme-based argument that is not useless, but one must be able to tie the argument to a reasonable claim that the extreme may actually occur. This is not one of those cases. There is no chance of people ordering children to stand in front of trains.
Your entire hypothesis rests on the fact that you believe that no law should be allowed that prevents an event from occurring. Thus a Boeing jet where faked screws are used should never lead to a prosecution if those fake screws hold fast. Thus if two independent operators sell and use these fake screws, only the ones who cause a crash should be prosecuted, even though the other group independently put the entire plane full of people at risk.
I hope that's a more "reasonable" example.
I hope that's a more "reasonable" example.
You should pay more attention to the names on posts. It wasn't "my" hypothesis.
And while that actually is a more reasonable example, I would suggest that something like "Doesn't your entire hypothesis rest on..." rather than assuming it does and then drawing a conclusion from that, then drawing a conclusion from that, then taking that conclusion to an absurd extreme, then mocking someone for that extreme would be more productive.
And while that actually is a more reasonable example, I would suggest that something like "Doesn't your entire hypothesis rest on..." rather than assuming it does and then drawing a conclusion from that, then drawing a conclusion from that, then taking that conclusion to an absurd extreme, then mocking someone for that extreme would be more productive.
You do realize that harm caused and potential for harm are both considered heavily in criminal law, right? Bringing up a bunch of absurd examples doesn't change the fact that criminal law isn't 100% binary.
That last example wasn't hypothetical. And yep, that's my point, though a traffic violation is civil and not criminal law.
With the 6 year old you are creating a situation where there is an (x != 0)% probability they screw up and accidentally die. When taking explosives on a plane there is an (effectively) 0% probability you screw up and accidentally blow up the plane. Very difference circumstance.
But by speeding you're creating a much bigger than 0% probability you screw up and do something bad.
Also, by speeding, you are adding to the kinetic energy available to cause mayhem and destruction if you do screw up. And remember, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed, so going twice as fast means your car has 4 times more energy.
If the speed limits were set to the safest speed to drive at you would be right. They aren't though. They are, as the original post says, set arbitrarily.
Often they are set lower than the safest speed to be driving on that road (generally the speed that the rest of the traffic is traveling at). So by not speeding you increase the probability that you screw up and do something bad.
Often they are set lower than the safest speed to be driving on that road (generally the speed that the rest of the traffic is traveling at). So by not speeding you increase the probability that you screw up and do something bad.
In California at least - the speed limit cannot be different (more than some statistical measure) of the real world speed people actually drive on the road. Theres a process for requesting a survey of actual vehicle speed for a street. If the measures speeds differ in a statistically significant way from the posted speed limit, the posted speed limit has to be changed.
Bullshit. One who drives recklessly puts people's lives in danger, including himself. Hiw is that permissible?
Again: "exceeding arbitrary limits" does not equate with "driving recklessly".
A safe speed to drive at depends on all sorts of factors that are not included in the posted speed limit, including the amount of traffic around, the amount of pedestrians around, the weather, how much sleep you've had, what car you're driving.
The only fair way to enforce it is to check whether anyone was actually harmed by your actions. If nobody is harmed, no harm was done.
A safe speed to drive at depends on all sorts of factors that are not included in the posted speed limit, including the amount of traffic around, the amount of pedestrians around, the weather, how much sleep you've had, what car you're driving.
The only fair way to enforce it is to check whether anyone was actually harmed by your actions. If nobody is harmed, no harm was done.
I entirely agree that safe-driving speed depends on numerous factors. Some specific to the driver and vehicle. Some general. But the problem is that speed differentials are far more hazardous than speed per se.
In some places, there's a requirement for slow drivers to pull over, allowing other traffic to pass. In Mexico, slow drivers tend to use the shoulder. But even on multi-lane roads, speed differentials are hazardous.
In some places, there's a requirement for slow drivers to pull over, allowing other traffic to pass. In Mexico, slow drivers tend to use the shoulder. But even on multi-lane roads, speed differentials are hazardous.
Why should I wait until your fist makes contact with my face to consider your action a harmful crime? That's absurd.
How do you conclude that speed limits are arbitrary? Speed limits depend on the circumstances, and in combination with all the other traffic measures orchestrate the use of roads for drivers and pedestrians. If there's a certain speed limit on a road, people expect the other users of the road to obey them limits, and behave accordingly. It's like in an orchestra, everyone depends on everyone else, if one player is out of sync, the whole piece sounds off.
If speed limits aren't set based on a real world survey of organic driving speeds on a given road segment then they are 100% arbitrary. In the vast majority of the U.S. it's just a number that a bureaucrat picks for any number of reasons that aren't related to actual safety.
Anyone complaining about speeding on this thread needs to spend some time reading up on the available research. For example, on the highway the drivers with the lowest accident rate tend to go 10mph over the limit. There are many more findings along these lines that should piss off any safe driver that likes to go at an appropriate speed for their own vehicle/reflexes/conditions.
Anyone complaining about speeding on this thread needs to spend some time reading up on the available research. For example, on the highway the drivers with the lowest accident rate tend to go 10mph over the limit. There are many more findings along these lines that should piss off any safe driver that likes to go at an appropriate speed for their own vehicle/reflexes/conditions.
I cannot disagree with this line of reasoning at all - the whole idea behind reckless is a disregard for danger or consequence, not the actual consequence itself.
I was younger and first got a license, for sure my friends and I would drive faster than we could reasonably react to a sudden change or would purposefully spin out or fish tail when there was snow; no one was ever hurt but I considered it reckless then and still do. Just because we were lucky and didnt hurt someone or cause damage it doesnt mean it wasnt a reckless maneauver. A single change, a patch of ice we didnt see, slipped the clutch, misjudged the stopping distance, and it easily could have been an accident.
Recklessness can't be judged just by "did anyone get hurt?"; that defies the definition of the concept. I'm not able to argue the data on speed limits, but we're certainly told they're not arbitrary. Likewise, it at least sets an expectation as to what vehicles on the road will be doing. I have seen and have been a person who felt 60 mph in a residential was a fine idea, but just because we didn't hurt someone those times doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's better to have some consistency than people just driving what feels right, and removing the limits removes the ability for us to correct judgement of those who are clearly erring in their judgement. (If there's no law, there's no consequence unless they cause harm, which is someone else paying for their lesson; hardly a fair proposition)
If we think limits are too low, the answer is "prove it with evidence and change the limits." Make a case, back it with data, and get it out there. It's not just do whatever you want.
I was younger and first got a license, for sure my friends and I would drive faster than we could reasonably react to a sudden change or would purposefully spin out or fish tail when there was snow; no one was ever hurt but I considered it reckless then and still do. Just because we were lucky and didnt hurt someone or cause damage it doesnt mean it wasnt a reckless maneauver. A single change, a patch of ice we didnt see, slipped the clutch, misjudged the stopping distance, and it easily could have been an accident.
Recklessness can't be judged just by "did anyone get hurt?"; that defies the definition of the concept. I'm not able to argue the data on speed limits, but we're certainly told they're not arbitrary. Likewise, it at least sets an expectation as to what vehicles on the road will be doing. I have seen and have been a person who felt 60 mph in a residential was a fine idea, but just because we didn't hurt someone those times doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's better to have some consistency than people just driving what feels right, and removing the limits removes the ability for us to correct judgement of those who are clearly erring in their judgement. (If there's no law, there's no consequence unless they cause harm, which is someone else paying for their lesson; hardly a fair proposition)
If we think limits are too low, the answer is "prove it with evidence and change the limits." Make a case, back it with data, and get it out there. It's not just do whatever you want.
Well there are two options wrt controlling speed, one are the limits so that everyone kniws what to do and expect, and the second is bumps, e.g. London where driving on tarmac is as comfortable as driving down on steps. It's not reasonable to trust people driving tonnes of steel with liters of flammables inside impeccably at high speeds, especially in residential areas where roads are more like a tightly knit cobweb than a straight line from a to b.
Tucson, AZ: We had red-light cam's and speed cam's, they both went down in flames (2-to-1 against) when it was put to a vote. I deliberately was getting "tickets" to force them to try and serve me. Got up to 14 or 15... friends joke I should make a coffee table book.
Trivialized? How about trivializing the tracking of movement? How about trivializing the horrible path to computers making legal decisions? Would you would support mandatory car velocity vector tracking and reporting? This "it's for the children" stuff is getting old.
Trivialized? How about trivializing the tracking of movement? How about trivializing the horrible path to computers making legal decisions? Would you would support mandatory car velocity vector tracking and reporting? This "it's for the children" stuff is getting old.
> I was with the author until …
It seems excessive to dismiss the whole article just because you disagree on this side-note.
It seems excessive to dismiss the whole article just because you disagree on this side-note.
Point taken. Mine is definitely a reactionary tangent that I hope not to undermine the very important point of the article. I agree that especially in Montgomery, the traffic camera enforcement is overreaching.
My response was more to higlight the dangers of making speeding socially acceptable.
My response was more to higlight the dangers of making speeding socially acceptable.
It already is, and trying to pretend that it isn't is a fool's errand. If enforcement gets too strict there might be a serious outcry instead of a silent taxpayer like there is now.
Remember, it's all of us together that agree what the laws are. A huge majority of people speed at least in some places. That means that it's socially acceptable, to some degree. It will be very tough to put the genie back in the bottle.
Remember, it's all of us together that agree what the laws are. A huge majority of people speed at least in some places. That means that it's socially acceptable, to some degree. It will be very tough to put the genie back in the bottle.
I may be a fool, but will fight anyway...
It's not impossible to change these kinds of social mores. A generation ago, no self-respecting red-blooded American male would wear a seatbelt, I mean that's just not manly! But now we don't see that machismo attitude as much and even those with extra strong y-chromosomes don't mind wearing seatbelts.
I think given the right messaging it can be similarly possible to reduce the socially acceptable attitude about speeding.
My dad grew up in an era where if your car didn't have 8 cylinders and 400+ HP then it wasn't a car. But also twice as many people died in car accidents despite there now being more drivers. Much of that is due to improvements in car safety (and regulations that require safety features), but it's also due to changing social attitudes about what a car means to us. It used to be a symbol of our freedom, now that mystique is not so much around and it's really just a method of transportation.
I'm the guy who will tell a friend that he's going too fast or following too close when I'm riding shotgun (actually I tell my wife this too!)
And yes I am often disparagingly called a "Boy Scout" in reply, but dammit, I'm going to keep doing it because aggressive driving is needless and dangerous.
It's not impossible to change these kinds of social mores. A generation ago, no self-respecting red-blooded American male would wear a seatbelt, I mean that's just not manly! But now we don't see that machismo attitude as much and even those with extra strong y-chromosomes don't mind wearing seatbelts.
I think given the right messaging it can be similarly possible to reduce the socially acceptable attitude about speeding.
My dad grew up in an era where if your car didn't have 8 cylinders and 400+ HP then it wasn't a car. But also twice as many people died in car accidents despite there now being more drivers. Much of that is due to improvements in car safety (and regulations that require safety features), but it's also due to changing social attitudes about what a car means to us. It used to be a symbol of our freedom, now that mystique is not so much around and it's really just a method of transportation.
I'm the guy who will tell a friend that he's going too fast or following too close when I'm riding shotgun (actually I tell my wife this too!)
And yes I am often disparagingly called a "Boy Scout" in reply, but dammit, I'm going to keep doing it because aggressive driving is needless and dangerous.
I think the mores change more because young people grow up doing something a certain way and hey presto, that's just how the world is now. Not because extremely motivated individuals like yourself manage to browbeat, shame, mock, etc people into behaving differently. Because the odds that you're going to convince someone against their will to change their mind rapidly approach zero as your desire becomes anything greater than zero.
That people around you put up with your proselytizing and "backseat" driving and criticism is more a testament to their patience than evidence that your method works, at least in my opinion.
EDIT: Further, I've found it far more effective to apologize for my particular paranoia (whatever it is) that most people don't share and ask them to please respect it temporarily. You do two great things, first you acknowledge that the currently accepted standard is what it is and you recognize that you're asking something of people, and then you give them the option to do whatever they feel is right. You trust them. More often than not it works, since most adults are in fact, adult.
People might roll their eyes and "comply" with your vociferous quasi-demands but odds are good that if they change their behavior it's not because you convinced them to believe a different thing. But rather you've convinced them that you're absolutely willing to make a big deal out of something every time and so to avoid getting lectured -- yet again -- it's easier to just pretend to be convinced while you're around.
That people around you put up with your proselytizing and "backseat" driving and criticism is more a testament to their patience than evidence that your method works, at least in my opinion.
EDIT: Further, I've found it far more effective to apologize for my particular paranoia (whatever it is) that most people don't share and ask them to please respect it temporarily. You do two great things, first you acknowledge that the currently accepted standard is what it is and you recognize that you're asking something of people, and then you give them the option to do whatever they feel is right. You trust them. More often than not it works, since most adults are in fact, adult.
People might roll their eyes and "comply" with your vociferous quasi-demands but odds are good that if they change their behavior it's not because you convinced them to believe a different thing. But rather you've convinced them that you're absolutely willing to make a big deal out of something every time and so to avoid getting lectured -- yet again -- it's easier to just pretend to be convinced while you're around.
Distracted driving is far more of a problem in my opinion. Not to mention, rarely have I seen an accident caused by speed, though speeding can make the outcome much worse and avoidance more difficult.
[deleted]
Many speed limits are arbitrarily low. People are rational (excluding outliers) and drive the speed they feel safe driving, signs be damned. On primary roads the way limits should be set is by monitoring traffic speed and making that the limit. Instead, you get the "think of the children" irrational folks forcing lower speed limits on everyone.
You highlight one exception. In areas with high population density and wide, high quality roads (much of the USA) you may need lower speed limits than what people feel they can rationally drive. Instead of just posting limits you need to add traffic controls that force lower speeds (eg stop signs, speed bumps).
You highlight one exception. In areas with high population density and wide, high quality roads (much of the USA) you may need lower speed limits than what people feel they can rationally drive. Instead of just posting limits you need to add traffic controls that force lower speeds (eg stop signs, speed bumps).
It's not just about safety.
Speed limits that are slightly below reasonable speeds mean there is always probable cause to detain nearly anyone driving a car.
And pity the poor soul who adheres to the posted speed limit. That's often a separate offense of impeding the flow of traffic.
Speed limits that are slightly below reasonable speeds mean there is always probable cause to detain nearly anyone driving a car.
And pity the poor soul who adheres to the posted speed limit. That's often a separate offense of impeding the flow of traffic.
> The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30 in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next.
That sounds like the classic "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Traffic studies[1] have shown that changing speed limits do not really affect overall traffic speeds by all that much. What will change them are engineering methods that give indications to drivers that it's not safe to drive faster than X speed. So, posting a speed limit of 25 mph on a roadway that was previously posted at 45 mph without making any changes to the roadway itself isn't going to make much of a difference in terms of traffic speeds.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
That sounds like the classic "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Traffic studies[1] have shown that changing speed limits do not really affect overall traffic speeds by all that much. What will change them are engineering methods that give indications to drivers that it's not safe to drive faster than X speed. So, posting a speed limit of 25 mph on a roadway that was previously posted at 45 mph without making any changes to the roadway itself isn't going to make much of a difference in terms of traffic speeds.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/
Traffic cameras are a great way to enforce speeding laws, so long as adequate back end processes are in place for challenging the tickets. Way better than having human cops doing the job selectively pulling people over.
Whether or not you are a fan of traffic cameras, traffic violations are in fact serious and should not be brushed off. The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30 in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next.
People don't think that way. The general thinking is 10-over is OK.
People don't think that way. The general thinking is 10-over is OK.
[deleted]
A common mistake is to associate speed limits with limiting kinetic energy. That is a secondary consideration. The primary: to rate limit the number of distractions a driver has to consider per second. For example, if you see a car backing out of a driveway, you are unlikely to notice the child playing near the street in the next yard for a certain amount of time, and the speed limit is chosen to help us manage this.
> I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”
As a layman, can anyone explain why they are taught not to ask this?
As a layman, can anyone explain why they are taught not to ask this?
The reason is that if you've done your job so far, you have communicated the answer to that last unanswered question, and asking it is therefore high risk and low reward.
The risk is that the witness will flat out deny what they had essentially already admitted to, getting you tangled in rehashing things or else unable to actually prove your point.
More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own.
The risk is that the witness will flat out deny what they had essentially already admitted to, getting you tangled in rehashing things or else unable to actually prove your point.
More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own.
> More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own.
The risk argument makes a lot of sense to me, but this part seems to be putting a lot of faith in the competence of a jury of your peers.
The risk argument makes a lot of sense to me, but this part seems to be putting a lot of faith in the competence of a jury of your peers.
Well, we do put a lot of faith in them, in most criminal cases. More than that. And you can always come back to it in closing arguments to put the pieces together explicitly.
I've always imagined the jury system as being the least of all evils, not an expression of faith in the decency and competence of your fellow citizen. It's the same thing with Churchill's famous quote about democracy: just because it's better than all the alternatives doesn't mean that voters have to be even attempt to be remotely reasonable.
I'd imagine that this "last question" guideline exists because of the experience of trial lawyers, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I was just surprised that that's the way it shakes out. The closing argument thing does make sense, but that seems like it would also deprive the jury of the opportunity to piece it together themselves.
I'd imagine that this "last question" guideline exists because of the experience of trial lawyers, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I was just surprised that that's the way it shakes out. The closing argument thing does make sense, but that seems like it would also deprive the jury of the opportunity to piece it together themselves.
I assume the lawyer would spell it all out in closing arguments. The difference is that at that time the lawyer can comment and interpret, and there isn't a witness that might respond unpredictably.
Because in a cross examination, you're supposed to ask very narrow closed questions (yes/no answers only) in a series, so that you get the evidence out in the way you want the decisionmaker to hear it. Ideally, the witness isn't supposed to catch on to where you're going so that they don't try to weasel out of answering them with "weeeelll.. not really because..".
But you don't ask "the last question", which is the one that sums up the point you were trying to make, because then the witness sees how you've shown them to be full of shit, and they'll spend 10 minutes weaseling out of everything you just established. It's SO TEMPTING to ask it directly, because you really want to hit the point home, but it's often too risky because it can backfire by breaking up your flow -- you often have dozens of lines of questioning, and there's a "last question" to each of them.
What you're supposed to do is explain "the last question" in your final submissions, using the transcript from your cross as the proof the statement is true.
But you don't ask "the last question", which is the one that sums up the point you were trying to make, because then the witness sees how you've shown them to be full of shit, and they'll spend 10 minutes weaseling out of everything you just established. It's SO TEMPTING to ask it directly, because you really want to hit the point home, but it's often too risky because it can backfire by breaking up your flow -- you often have dozens of lines of questioning, and there's a "last question" to each of them.
What you're supposed to do is explain "the last question" in your final submissions, using the transcript from your cross as the proof the statement is true.
He signed a piece of paper, stipulating someone committed a crime without evidence. In order for officers to arrest you, they need probable cause. Without evidence, he has no probable cause. He lied under penalty of perjury, saying he had evidence of a crime committed by Adam.
Right, that's what the officer did wrong.
But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.
But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.
Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to avoid a penalty:
1. Lie
2. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not prepared to counter-argue).
3. Take the fifth and refuse to answer.
Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid.
1. Did you witness the speeding?
2. Were you able to identify the driver of the car?
3. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x"
4. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document?
5. Are there any other signatures on this document?
Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction must be vacated.
1. Lie
2. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not prepared to counter-argue).
3. Take the fifth and refuse to answer.
Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid.
1. Did you witness the speeding?
2. Were you able to identify the driver of the car?
3. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x"
4. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document?
5. Are there any other signatures on this document?
Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction must be vacated.
Could the story have been a simplification or abstraction? As in, he did something like what you said, but condensed it down for conciseness?
I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He never addresses that. Possibly the principle he refers is "never ask a question that will turn into a dead end (nowhere to go in the examination) if the witness answers in the unfavorable way" (i.e. "no").
> I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no."
He can ask what evidence does the officer have to show that the author was in the car at that point of time when the photo was taken.
He can ask what evidence does the officer have to show that the author was in the car at that point of time when the photo was taken.
The question you're not supposed to ask is whatever the last question in your line of questioning would generally be. Or, I suppose: 'is the claim I've been asking you to provide evidence for true?'.
In order to get a 'yes', you need to convince the witness of your claim. And most cross-examinations either involve discrediting the witness, or leading them to provide evidence that helps the side they're not on. So they're rather biased.
If you ask it, and get a yes from the witness -- you almost certainly got enough from the witness for any judge/jury in the world to agree with you. So it doesn't really help.
When you don't get a yes, you're opening the door to the witness providing a different explanation for the things you've established. Which you don't want.
*
In this case, Macleod had obtained everything he needed from the police officer to demonstrate that he had committed perjury. He could join the dots later, instead of asking the police officer to do so.
In order to get a 'yes', you need to convince the witness of your claim. And most cross-examinations either involve discrediting the witness, or leading them to provide evidence that helps the side they're not on. So they're rather biased.
If you ask it, and get a yes from the witness -- you almost certainly got enough from the witness for any judge/jury in the world to agree with you. So it doesn't really help.
When you don't get a yes, you're opening the door to the witness providing a different explanation for the things you've established. Which you don't want.
*
In this case, Macleod had obtained everything he needed from the police officer to demonstrate that he had committed perjury. He could join the dots later, instead of asking the police officer to do so.
It's probably that if he answered no there was no way for MacLeod to refute it. So that answer is on record.
I thought it was a slight attempt at humor, e.g. "I ate the one cookie you're never supposed to eat - the last one." but am now curious as well.
Well there was evidence -- a vehicle that was registered to him was photographed as it was involved in a civil infraction. It wasn't conclusive evidence, much less proof. But it was evidence.
And although I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that probable cause is a relatively low standard to meet, much lower than preponderance of the evidence and certainly much lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
Ask yourself this -- if a witness saw a car (and noted its license plate) parked in a house's driveway during the time when a burglary was likely to have taken place, and the car was unknown to those who lived at that address, would a judge sign a search warrant on that vehicle and the registrant's address based on probable cause?
And although I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that probable cause is a relatively low standard to meet, much lower than preponderance of the evidence and certainly much lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
Ask yourself this -- if a witness saw a car (and noted its license plate) parked in a house's driveway during the time when a burglary was likely to have taken place, and the car was unknown to those who lived at that address, would a judge sign a search warrant on that vehicle and the registrant's address based on probable cause?
I took this to mean you should never ask a witness if they committed a felony, because they can refuse to answer.
I confess: I got a red light ticket. I did in fact run a red light; I was late for a lunch date. In my defense, I wasn't speeding, and I crossed the limit line a fraction of a second after the light had changed to red (and before the light for crossing traffic had changed to green).
The citation I got included photos from the traffic camera, before and after the light changed, clearly showing my vehicle and its license plate. The photographs had been viewed by a sworn employee of the police department, who signed off on the citation. I paid the ticket.
The only criticism I have of the procedures used by the police department where I lived was that there was no photograph showing that I was the one driving the vehicle.
From the article it sounds as if the municipality doesn't care about the law. It sounds as if the photographs from the traffic camera are being reviewed by an employee of a private company; the photographs are not being provided to the driver (and may not even be provided to the police), there are no photographs showing the driver of the vehicle, and the police and court are ignoring any exculpatory evidence, and there is no procedure to refund the appeal bond!
This city (and many more) are relying on the difficulty of fighting these kinds of citations to gain unjustified revenue by ignoring peoples rights.
The citation I got included photos from the traffic camera, before and after the light changed, clearly showing my vehicle and its license plate. The photographs had been viewed by a sworn employee of the police department, who signed off on the citation. I paid the ticket.
The only criticism I have of the procedures used by the police department where I lived was that there was no photograph showing that I was the one driving the vehicle.
From the article it sounds as if the municipality doesn't care about the law. It sounds as if the photographs from the traffic camera are being reviewed by an employee of a private company; the photographs are not being provided to the driver (and may not even be provided to the police), there are no photographs showing the driver of the vehicle, and the police and court are ignoring any exculpatory evidence, and there is no procedure to refund the appeal bond!
This city (and many more) are relying on the difficulty of fighting these kinds of citations to gain unjustified revenue by ignoring peoples rights.
I have a similar story with a different ending. I allegedly made a right turn on red without stopping. That's running a red light. My car was on video, which I could watch online. The front bumper of the car allegedly crossed the white line 400 milliseconds after the light turned red.
I paid an attorney $300. He took all the standard legal means to delay the trial so that if he lost, the ticket wouldn't affect my insurance until the next year, thereby delaying a price increase. He wound up getting me an acquittal because the driver (allegedly me) was wearing sunglasses. The judge accepted his argument that, due to the sunglasses obscuring my eyes, the city could not conclusively determine that I was the driver.
I paid an attorney $300. He took all the standard legal means to delay the trial so that if he lost, the ticket wouldn't affect my insurance until the next year, thereby delaying a price increase. He wound up getting me an acquittal because the driver (allegedly me) was wearing sunglasses. The judge accepted his argument that, due to the sunglasses obscuring my eyes, the city could not conclusively determine that I was the driver.
I would like to add that I have no fundamental objection to red light cameras when properly used. Police have been using technology in law enforcement for a long time. I am in favor of anything that prevents innocent people from even being charged with a crime in the first place.
I would have no problem with a red light system operated by the police department, with cameras clearly showing the traffic light, the limit line, the vehicle and its license plate, and the driver, with the photos being reviewed by a sworn member of the police department. And the photos should be provided to the driver with the citation.
I would have no problem with a red light system operated by the police department, with cameras clearly showing the traffic light, the limit line, the vehicle and its license plate, and the driver, with the photos being reviewed by a sworn member of the police department. And the photos should be provided to the driver with the citation.
Call me extreme but I find the whole idea that a government can do what it wants with collected fine money extremely disturbing. Unfortunately not many people question it these days but I think a lot more should.
The first problem with "free" fine money is that is makes the enforcement of some laws more important to the government than the enforcement of others.
The second problem is that it allows the government to protect such collection from much of the scrutiny and transparency requirements that e.g. taxes have to go through. For tax policy there are political parties and candidates to choose from and you can exercise your power as a voter. However I've not ever seen fine policy or rates being part of a political program. It's close to impossible as a citizen to have any influence on that.
The solution to this problem would be to establish a law under which a government must give all fine money straight to charitable causes (the composition of which citizens can democratically vote on).
The first problem with "free" fine money is that is makes the enforcement of some laws more important to the government than the enforcement of others.
The second problem is that it allows the government to protect such collection from much of the scrutiny and transparency requirements that e.g. taxes have to go through. For tax policy there are political parties and candidates to choose from and you can exercise your power as a voter. However I've not ever seen fine policy or rates being part of a political program. It's close to impossible as a citizen to have any influence on that.
The solution to this problem would be to establish a law under which a government must give all fine money straight to charitable causes (the composition of which citizens can democratically vote on).
Our family has receive four of these tickets in the eight years we've been at our current residence. Fortunately, where we live you must be physically served for the ticket to be binding in anyway. So we just throw them in the trash and don't answer the door without seeing who it is.
At a prior residence in a different state I actually fought a red light ticket in court. I was able to prolong the actual hearing for six months using the government's own continuance rules. When the hearing finally arrived no law enforcement official showed up so the ticket was dismissed.
Let's face reality here. These things are just an unconstitutional tax, no more and no less.
At a prior residence in a different state I actually fought a red light ticket in court. I was able to prolong the actual hearing for six months using the government's own continuance rules. When the hearing finally arrived no law enforcement official showed up so the ticket was dismissed.
Let's face reality here. These things are just an unconstitutional tax, no more and no less.
Commentary on this at Volokh -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Good on the author. We need people with the time and money to fight bad precedent to do so. The people who designed the red light camera system in Chicago understand this and pushed the camera install sites to poorer neighborhoods with higher concentrations of people of color.
http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-safety...
http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-safety...
It seems like the author has a lot of time on his hand and is actually putting it to something that is good for the people.
Granted this was probably just him getting mad and wanting to throw his weight around but it ends up being something that improves the quality of life for anyone who deals with these unjust systems. I wish more law-academics, or academics in general, pushed these types of reforms in their field. I wish physisists and chemists could aid the community and that lawyers who actually care can improve the legal system for everyone (remove red tape and blatantly unconstitutional lawthat no one normal can fight).
Granted this was probably just him getting mad and wanting to throw his weight around but it ends up being something that improves the quality of life for anyone who deals with these unjust systems. I wish more law-academics, or academics in general, pushed these types of reforms in their field. I wish physisists and chemists could aid the community and that lawyers who actually care can improve the legal system for everyone (remove red tape and blatantly unconstitutional lawthat no one normal can fight).
I love this. I love it partly because I could never imagine this happening in the UK. The UK doesn't have a constitution. And I could imagine this getting shut down pretty quickly.
I hope this kind of attitude persists in the US. It's one of the things that continues to give me hope for western style democracy.
I hope this kind of attitude persists in the US. It's one of the things that continues to give me hope for western style democracy.
I know people believe this but the UK does have a constitution, it's the sum of laws, treaties, conventions and the Common Law as interpreted by the judiciary over hundreds of years.
It is no less real than the American Constitution. What it doesn't have is a single written document (with amendments).
It is no less real than the American Constitution. What it doesn't have is a single written document (with amendments).
That makes it a bit harder to go read, don't you think?
It also lacks a fundamental feature the US Constitution has in being umambiguously final. No other law can supersede it. Interpreting an entire corpus of law as a 'constitution' is grossly inaequate.
It also lacks a fundamental feature the US Constitution has in being umambiguously final. No other law can supersede it. Interpreting an entire corpus of law as a 'constitution' is grossly inaequate.
The U.S. Constitution is far from unambiguous, and U.S. constitutional law can only be understood as a corpus of precedents which explain the meaning of terms which are open to interpretation, like 'due process' or 'freedom of speech.'
I didn't say that the Constitution was unambiguous, but that it is unambiguously the final law.
The UK does have a constitution, it's just not a single codified constitutional document. This has led to some really interesting constitutional documents, for example, a letter to The TImes under a pseudonoym Senex was called a constitutional document in evidence taken before the Justice Committee:
> Q16 Chairman: Is the letter to The Times in 1950 under a pseudonym Senex, which we now know is Alan Lascelles, a constitutional document that now guides us?
> Lord Turnbull:In a strange way,it is,yes; people have accepted the logic of the arguments that he put forward.
From https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/...
(Incidentally that letter has been superseded by the Fixed Parliament Act).
> Q16 Chairman: Is the letter to The Times in 1950 under a pseudonym Senex, which we now know is Alan Lascelles, a constitutional document that now guides us?
> Lord Turnbull:In a strange way,it is,yes; people have accepted the logic of the arguments that he put forward.
From https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/...
(Incidentally that letter has been superseded by the Fixed Parliament Act).
Your last note shows what the UK lacks - constitution as a supreme document.
In UK, the Parliament is the supreme authority, and can amend that unwritten constitution simply by passing an Act of Parliament, which only requires a simple majority.
In effect, this means that the Parliament is not really bound by the constitution. Which makes it largely useless for the purposes for which it is heavily used and relied upon in US.
In UK, the Parliament is the supreme authority, and can amend that unwritten constitution simply by passing an Act of Parliament, which only requires a simple majority.
In effect, this means that the Parliament is not really bound by the constitution. Which makes it largely useless for the purposes for which it is heavily used and relied upon in US.
> The UK doesn't have a constitution.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution.
So..., it does not have a constitution then?
I normally do not care about down-votes and I still don't but for people who are downvoting me explain to me this: Where can I go and read the constitution that exists but that it is not written down anywhere? It's an oxymoron. So for all practical purposes there is no constitution.
It does, according to wikipedia (at least some sources are written):
> The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
> The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
Excuse my ignorance here, but is this something that can become a class action against the city then? Why not find all the people given traffic tickets without due process and probable cause? That would actually get some attention no?
It currently happening in multiple states including the district of Columbia.
Municipal and County Attorneys are really really scummy. It's basically just a job to be corrupt in. They have long forgotten their constitutional duty. The lawyers who remember that are either busy earning a lot of money the hard way (being corrupt is the easy way) or protecting those who need it. Taking money from traffic cams is just another way this is expressed.
Local elections matter people.
(I have family members who are attorneys and public officials in small towns, I speak about this from experience listening to them rant).
Local elections matter people.
(I have family members who are attorneys and public officials in small towns, I speak about this from experience listening to them rant).
I recently went to court for a red-light ticket, which I received when I went through an intersection where the red light was blocked by a vehicle in another lane (this is clear from the video and photographs taken by the red-light camera). At my hearing, the judge acknowledged that I was driving slowly and that there was no way I could have seen the red light, but that he was obliged to find all red-light camera cases guilty.
In general, I think we'll see that technology aids the state in "letter of the law" situations, and as the state gets more access to information about us (including the possibility of our thoughts), the ways to punish in biased or primarily revenue-generating ways will only increase.
In general, I think we'll see that technology aids the state in "letter of the law" situations, and as the state gets more access to information about us (including the possibility of our thoughts), the ways to punish in biased or primarily revenue-generating ways will only increase.
The contortions Montgomery County have gone through and way they implemented it is poor. In other Jurisdictions, CA for instance, they've passed new law/ruling that running red lights is same level of misdemeanor as parking tickets. They take photo of driver and if driver is not you, you are free to prove that in court. [this is 10+year old info so may have changed]. But, from OA, the absurdity in Montgomery Co, is all around how they don't identify the driver (with photo), yet the violation is against the driver.
Source: I use to work in this industry, even participated on the Montgomery County Red Light Camera Pilot.
Source: I use to work in this industry, even participated on the Montgomery County Red Light Camera Pilot.
Ha ha:
""” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.""
I was hoping this to somehow turn into an admiralty court discussion.
""” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.""
I was hoping this to somehow turn into an admiralty court discussion.
Things are getting so dystopian. Your property is yours and you are responsible for it when the police want someone to pay a ticket for an offense in which your property was used without your consent or knowledge yet when the police want to take your property without evidence of wrong doing they sue your property, not you, so they can confiscate it and you can't defend yourself and your property without permission from the court/judge.
> "several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition."
I've always wondered. If these things are civil trials isn't it unconstitutional for the traffic court to have a sign saying "you don't have a right to a jury" (as it does in SF)? The constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in all civil cases with a penalty greater than $20.
I've always wondered. If these things are civil trials isn't it unconstitutional for the traffic court to have a sign saying "you don't have a right to a jury" (as it does in SF)? The constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in all civil cases with a penalty greater than $20.
But that was $20 back when the Constitution was written. Adjusted for inflation [1] and you could be looking at anywhere from $390 (CPI) to $941,000 (relative share of GDP). I have no idea how that is applied today.
[1] https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_sou...
[1] https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_sou...
I don't see where it says "corrected for inflation" in the Constitution. If the government wants to, by policy, devalue the dollar and make it easier to claim jury rights in civil cases, that is its own fault.
This story makes me wish I had studied law.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5 Is a basic intro, drawn by a criminal defence attorney practicing in NYC.
Absolutely wonderful guide. I've bought copies of the book and given them as gifts.
Read this article and previous HN discussion. It disabused me of the idea that studying law was worthwhile. Far too complicated, too ambiguous. YMMV.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10619614
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10619614
You still can.
Actually really interesting. It speaks of how people interpret the law to make it do what they want, and eventually precedent gets set and that made-up law becomes true.
It is true that many traffic cameras, depending upon the vendor, technology the camera uses and supporting infrastructure, may or may not produce the actual cause of violation. This is the reason why many cities have multiple level of validation from authorized officiers.
So wait a minute... as per these arguments, all laws for speeding are null and void because government can't prosecute you unless some citizen brings complaint with allegations of personal injury. Is that correct?
No that's incorrect. They can either do that, treating your speeding as a civil case, or - much more commonly - they treat it as a criminal case.
The complaint here is that they are picking and choosing between the two approaches, providing the safety mechanisms of neither.
Edit: Also, it appears the authors claim that the city couldn't constitutionally treat it as a civil case are being disputed elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
The complaint here is that they are picking and choosing between the two approaches, providing the safety mechanisms of neither.
Edit: Also, it appears the authors claim that the city couldn't constitutionally treat it as a civil case are being disputed elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
This account may be true. But the source has an exceptional interest in promoting a specific point of view coming from extreme political conservativism which should be considered.
The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey.[1][2][3]
...
The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton University in December 2008.[10]
Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey.[1][2][3]
...
The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton University in December 2008.[10]
Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
[deleted]
I think the most interesting concept here is that a future with driverless cars is a future with almost no way to incriminate an American. Cars are the main way the government gets in your business. I live in a big enough city that I don't have to drive and the move has removed so much of the day-to-day anxiety of life that I was astounded
What will they do when they can no longer control us via "you could be drunk" or "you're driving the wrong way"?
What will they do when they can no longer control us via "you could be drunk" or "you're driving the wrong way"?
Stop and frisk. Maybe it won't be applied to you, but it will be applied to an awful lot of people.
[deleted]
Is it actually possible to have a constitution-compliant automatic system for registering traffic violations in US?
Shoot the front license plate and get a picture of the person. Oh wait, not all states have front facing plates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of...
As a comparision, most of the EU member states have both front and rear facing plates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of...
As a comparision, most of the EU member states have both front and rear facing plates.
Multiple cameras, possibly recording video, could record enough info to fully reconstruc the info on the infraction and get the picture of the driver and the plate even if they're on opposing sides of the car.
SF is working on installing speed cams, but it has to pass Sacto first. I spoke to the staff at the SFMTA and they are working with the ACLU and EFF, among other rights advocacy groups, to establish a fair traffic cam law for SF.
Although McLeod is a law professor, some of his legal claims have already been disputed by Orin Kerr on the Volokh Conspiracy.[1] He has published constitutional law nonsense before, and once accused a federal judge of 'tyranny' for upholding the Fourteenth Amendment argument that succeeded in Obergefell v. Hodges.[2] It is surprising to see so many commenters uncritically endorsing his conclusions. His main complaint seems to be:
> [S]everal states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.
But McLeod never explains what this actually means, and goes on to describe an ordinary criminal trial where he was acquitted after the prosecution failed to prove its case to the required standard. While the focus on the trial suggests that he is complaining about criminal procedure, the real purpose of the article seems to be to deny the legitimacy of traffic cameras as a law enforcement mechanism. The vaguely-described contractual arrangements sound concerning, but he doesn't give any supporting evidence and those contracts weren't the subject of his case.
Traffic cameras are common in the rest of the developed world and can be used consistently with the rule of law. This may involve the legislature infringing the rights of accused people by shifting the burden, or reducing the standard, of proof. That's something we should be careful about doing, but when the maximum penalty is a modest fine, sometimes it makes sense to qualify the accused's rights in order to save money on wasteful inquiries into trivial misdemeanours. This kind of balancing of rights and interests is routine in constitutional law. The Due Process Clause does prevent U.S. state governments from reversing the burden of proof in some criminal cases[3] – but this is not axiomatic, and McLeod didn't even show that the issue arose in his case.
[1] 'Law professor gets a traffic-camera ticket. Hilarity ensues.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
[2] 'Yes, Tyranny is a Fitting Word' http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/
[3] 'Wrong on Red: The Constitutional Case Against Red-Light Cameras' http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
> [S]everal states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.
But McLeod never explains what this actually means, and goes on to describe an ordinary criminal trial where he was acquitted after the prosecution failed to prove its case to the required standard. While the focus on the trial suggests that he is complaining about criminal procedure, the real purpose of the article seems to be to deny the legitimacy of traffic cameras as a law enforcement mechanism. The vaguely-described contractual arrangements sound concerning, but he doesn't give any supporting evidence and those contracts weren't the subject of his case.
Traffic cameras are common in the rest of the developed world and can be used consistently with the rule of law. This may involve the legislature infringing the rights of accused people by shifting the burden, or reducing the standard, of proof. That's something we should be careful about doing, but when the maximum penalty is a modest fine, sometimes it makes sense to qualify the accused's rights in order to save money on wasteful inquiries into trivial misdemeanours. This kind of balancing of rights and interests is routine in constitutional law. The Due Process Clause does prevent U.S. state governments from reversing the burden of proof in some criminal cases[3] – but this is not axiomatic, and McLeod didn't even show that the issue arose in his case.
[1] 'Law professor gets a traffic-camera ticket. Hilarity ensues.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
[2] 'Yes, Tyranny is a Fitting Word' http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/
[3] 'Wrong on Red: The Constitutional Case Against Red-Light Cameras' http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
I think that his point is that, if he didn't know enough to take it to the trial, the original "conviction" (not really, since there was no trial - but in effect, enough to force the payment of fine) of him would stand, despite all those blatant issues of lack of evidence that are inherent in traffic cameras - in particular, the lack of the ability to prove that the driver is the specific person charged.
In other words, the city wanted to fine him under the "civil" rules, where they claimed simple preponderance of evidence (car being on video, and its plate number establishing him as owner, and therefore the most likely driver) - even though the infringement itself was that of a criminal law, and no harm was demonstrated to pursue it as civil. But the moment he did challenge them, then - and only then - the new higher bar applied.
Logic would dictate that either the bar should be applied from the get go - i.e. that no-one should be fined unless there's clear evidence that they were the drivers (which would likely result in all traffic cam evidence being summarily thrown out as inherently incapable of meeting that bar); or else, if we want the low preponderance of evidence bar for fines, then actual harm should have to be demonstrated for the fine to apply.
In other words, the city wanted to fine him under the "civil" rules, where they claimed simple preponderance of evidence (car being on video, and its plate number establishing him as owner, and therefore the most likely driver) - even though the infringement itself was that of a criminal law, and no harm was demonstrated to pursue it as civil. But the moment he did challenge them, then - and only then - the new higher bar applied.
Logic would dictate that either the bar should be applied from the get go - i.e. that no-one should be fined unless there's clear evidence that they were the drivers (which would likely result in all traffic cam evidence being summarily thrown out as inherently incapable of meeting that bar); or else, if we want the low preponderance of evidence bar for fines, then actual harm should have to be demonstrated for the fine to apply.
I missed mentioning this in an earlier comment of mine. This, and probably more of such, should be made into TV shows and movies. That'd get a wider reach and help inform more people.
I think this misses the forest for the trees.
McLeod identifies several very real problems with traffic ticket enforcement in Montgomery. The red light cameras are operated by a third party company on a secret contract. A police officer casually perjures themselves at the hearing. The court's processes are onerous and unfair. These problems should all be fixed.
But the author wants to make the case that traffic camera tickets are unconstitutional, and fails.
By his own admission, there's an established constitutional framework for issuing citations against vehicles and not people (in rem jurisdiction). So, yes, the existing statutes for enforcement of traffic fines are incompatible with cameras. But it seems clearly possible to write statutes that are compatible: nothing about in rem says you it doesn't apply to a moving vehicle.
Cities and states can move to a system where camera tickets are like very expensive parking tickets. That satisfies the superficial objective of cities (revenue generation) --- probably more cheaply than the current system. Meanwhile: they can collect data on drivers and run actual investigations on repeat offenders, taking them to court directly and based on evidence if the camera system produces indications that they're abusive drivers.
Traffic enforcement agents can simply ask you whether you were driving your car at the time of the ticket. Most drivers will simply confirm. Some would obviously deny driving the car, or refuse to answer at all. But the car has to be insured, and insurance contracts are opinionated about who drives cars. There's recourse there as well.
(It's worth noting that McLeod presumably does know who was driving his car, and presumably could have been compelled to testify as a witness in an actual criminal case --- what made his experience with Montgomery's traffic court so terrible was clownshoes procedural ineptness, not some fundamental problem with cameras).
It goes without saying that cameras themselves will also improve. Does anyone believe that 20 years from now it will be all that difficult to automatically attribute a driver to a car tagged for a moving violation?
If it sounds like I'm pro-traffic-camera here, it's because in some sense I am. I agree that the systems we have today are abusive and should be shut down. But the overall concept is a very good one. Armed police officers should not be the first line of traffic compliance enforcement. For "routine" violations, of the sort where a traffic officer would simply pull you over, write a ticket, and let you go, there's no reason to stop cars at all. Dozens of people are killed every year in violent confrontations with the police that begin solely because of some stupid traffic infraction.
I think cameras (and sensors in general) are the future of traffic enforcement and that that's a positive thing.
McLeod identifies several very real problems with traffic ticket enforcement in Montgomery. The red light cameras are operated by a third party company on a secret contract. A police officer casually perjures themselves at the hearing. The court's processes are onerous and unfair. These problems should all be fixed.
But the author wants to make the case that traffic camera tickets are unconstitutional, and fails.
By his own admission, there's an established constitutional framework for issuing citations against vehicles and not people (in rem jurisdiction). So, yes, the existing statutes for enforcement of traffic fines are incompatible with cameras. But it seems clearly possible to write statutes that are compatible: nothing about in rem says you it doesn't apply to a moving vehicle.
Cities and states can move to a system where camera tickets are like very expensive parking tickets. That satisfies the superficial objective of cities (revenue generation) --- probably more cheaply than the current system. Meanwhile: they can collect data on drivers and run actual investigations on repeat offenders, taking them to court directly and based on evidence if the camera system produces indications that they're abusive drivers.
Traffic enforcement agents can simply ask you whether you were driving your car at the time of the ticket. Most drivers will simply confirm. Some would obviously deny driving the car, or refuse to answer at all. But the car has to be insured, and insurance contracts are opinionated about who drives cars. There's recourse there as well.
(It's worth noting that McLeod presumably does know who was driving his car, and presumably could have been compelled to testify as a witness in an actual criminal case --- what made his experience with Montgomery's traffic court so terrible was clownshoes procedural ineptness, not some fundamental problem with cameras).
It goes without saying that cameras themselves will also improve. Does anyone believe that 20 years from now it will be all that difficult to automatically attribute a driver to a car tagged for a moving violation?
If it sounds like I'm pro-traffic-camera here, it's because in some sense I am. I agree that the systems we have today are abusive and should be shut down. But the overall concept is a very good one. Armed police officers should not be the first line of traffic compliance enforcement. For "routine" violations, of the sort where a traffic officer would simply pull you over, write a ticket, and let you go, there's no reason to stop cars at all. Dozens of people are killed every year in violent confrontations with the police that begin solely because of some stupid traffic infraction.
I think cameras (and sensors in general) are the future of traffic enforcement and that that's a positive thing.
While I disagree with your latter points, I understand that it is a valid opinion. However, I'm curious why you think it is meaningful or lawful for there to be a legal process against a vehicle? The car can't pay a fine, what does it mean for there to be legal action against property?
I'm still reading, what state is this? Montgomery City is ambiguous and it doesn't give context near the beginning. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be clever long-form of story telling where details are sprinkled letting you infer as some form of entertainment, or if this is just missing pertinent details.
This guy should his talents to help stop cops from shoopting black people instead of helping feed his own ego. He's intellectually correct but what a waste of resources.
While he is a legal expert and I am not, I think he is missing the point. If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk. Traffic cameras are a deterrent that save municipalities lots of money not having to employ officers to act as deterrents. But a deterrent has to have a real consequence (people pay fines and other people hear about this) to work. He is using a small technicality to make a point about a huge issue of liberty which wastes tax payer money and will put the public at greater risk, cannot he do this through another means?
> If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk.
And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe.
Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.
And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe.
Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.
I'm just commenting based on my experience. I lived in Germany for 2 years and knowing traffic cameras were there made me a safer driver, taking less chances. Now being back at home in Canada, I noticed how my behaviour has changed knowing there was less probability I would be caught.
Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a huge difference in how drivers behave.
Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.
Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a huge difference in how drivers behave.
Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.
After reading the article, it seems like cities could make the problem go away if they changed it from a hybrid criminal-civil matter to a purely civil case. Make it an infraction more like a parking ticket and I think it would be constitutional, wouldn't it?
Due process is not a "small technicality".
If you can be charged with a crime, but the standard of proof is significantly lower than what it normally is in a criminal trial, that's a very bad thing with large potential for abuse, no matter how you slice it.
If you can be charged with a crime, but the standard of proof is significantly lower than what it normally is in a criminal trial, that's a very bad thing with large potential for abuse, no matter how you slice it.
Really? You think he doesn't understand why traffic cameras are put in place?
Good share. I think I can find numerous studies claiming traffic cameras being effective and non-effective Lenin varying places from numerous organizations with varying degrees of bias. So I will refrain from that arms race.
I should clarify my opinion encompasses both red light and speed cameras.
I know when traffic cameras are used never 100% of violations caisght on camera are used. The jurisdiction has to experiment on the % of violations enforced. Too many and the public gets angry and votes you out of office. Too little and it is not a deterrent. So in some cases, these municipalities where they have been deemed not effective have neglected to do this optimization and started with a % too low of enforcements.
People just assume traffic cameras are a cash grab. But the purpose is to deter bad driving behaviour at a lower cost than having officers in the field. Fines are the stick, but if it means money for municipities to reinvest that into the city, then great. For each city, there will be a threshold of % violations enforced before it be comes effective.
I should clarify my opinion encompasses both red light and speed cameras.
I know when traffic cameras are used never 100% of violations caisght on camera are used. The jurisdiction has to experiment on the % of violations enforced. Too many and the public gets angry and votes you out of office. Too little and it is not a deterrent. So in some cases, these municipalities where they have been deemed not effective have neglected to do this optimization and started with a % too low of enforcements.
People just assume traffic cameras are a cash grab. But the purpose is to deter bad driving behaviour at a lower cost than having officers in the field. Fines are the stick, but if it means money for municipities to reinvest that into the city, then great. For each city, there will be a threshold of % violations enforced before it be comes effective.
> So I will refrain from that arms race.
You're right - there's data to show cameras can make some intersections safer and make other intersections less safe. It isn't simple. There's also some pretty clear cases where the cameras were strictly a cash grab. Cities have been caught shortening the yellow light duration when they don't meet their revenue numbers.
So I don't think you can start with the assumption that traffic cameras make us safer. If they don't necessarily make us safer AND the criminal process is unconstitutional, it gets easier to oppose the way they are used.
You're right - there's data to show cameras can make some intersections safer and make other intersections less safe. It isn't simple. There's also some pretty clear cases where the cameras were strictly a cash grab. Cities have been caught shortening the yellow light duration when they don't meet their revenue numbers.
So I don't think you can start with the assumption that traffic cameras make us safer. If they don't necessarily make us safer AND the criminal process is unconstitutional, it gets easier to oppose the way they are used.
That is dirty shortening the yellow duration, I certainly would not support that.
No, I am sure he understands this. But I question his decision to use this incident to make a point about a big issue of law, freedom, and libery. He obviously thought it was acceptable and effective to do so. I think it was wasteful and ineffective and attacks a simple tool which saves money and is effective.
> attacks a simple tool which saves money and is effective
I won't argue that traffic cameras are good news from a revenue perspective, but I'm not sure it's effective. Check out:
https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/.
The references on that page make the argument that cameras increase the number of accidents.
I won't argue that traffic cameras are good news from a revenue perspective, but I'm not sure it's effective. Check out:
https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/.
The references on that page make the argument that cameras increase the number of accidents.
As noted on metafilter
http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-Tr...
FYI, the author is a morally repugnant conservative. He believes that a lesbian couple should not both be legally recognized as the parents of a child;[0] that Texas courts should defy the Supreme Court and further restrict access to women's healthcare;[1] and that colleges should be free to discriminate against LGBT students and employees; [2] among many other positions.
He signed a statement calling on the local, state, and federal government to refuse to follow Obergefell [3] (the case legalizing same sex marriage nationally).
The website this was published on is an outlet of the Witherspoon Institute.[4]
The author is fanatically opposed to what he calls 'the regulatory state'. He is a far-right extremist and religious fundamentalist.
[0] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/
[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/
[2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/
[3] https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/st...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-Tr...
FYI, the author is a morally repugnant conservative. He believes that a lesbian couple should not both be legally recognized as the parents of a child;[0] that Texas courts should defy the Supreme Court and further restrict access to women's healthcare;[1] and that colleges should be free to discriminate against LGBT students and employees; [2] among many other positions.
He signed a statement calling on the local, state, and federal government to refuse to follow Obergefell [3] (the case legalizing same sex marriage nationally).
The website this was published on is an outlet of the Witherspoon Institute.[4]
The author is fanatically opposed to what he calls 'the regulatory state'. He is a far-right extremist and religious fundamentalist.
[0] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/
[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/
[2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/
[3] https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/st...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
What's your point? I'm trying to understand what you're hoping to accomplish. That the original article is invalid because the guy pushing the issue is a conservative?
Perspective of who the author is. Every author and every website has an agenda. Personally, I cannot support an author who has these types of views, as it is against the inalienable rights of my friends and myself.
This is an interesting example of confirmation bias, specifically the Halo effect.
When you say "support", do you mean by giving him ad revenue from your page view? What if this author were espousing something you already believe in?
Personally, I find those other views different than my own. I still found this article entertaining and interesting.
When you say "support", do you mean by giving him ad revenue from your page view? What if this author were espousing something you already believe in?
Personally, I find those other views different than my own. I still found this article entertaining and interesting.
I def. take a critical eye to authors that have themselves taken a racist and/or homophobic stance (to name just two issues), and will defend that without question or apology. Make up your own opinions, but first get an idea on who you're trying to defend. This person's writing doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's no a secret what his agenda is. I agree he has the right to express it, and I have the right to counter his writing, by showing what else they're writing about.
In other words, you're willing to disregard an injustice as long as the person it's victimizing is someone you disagree with.
That alone is wrong, but that you state it with such conviction and self-awareness is disturbing.
That alone is wrong, but that you state it with such conviction and self-awareness is disturbing.
There's lots of injustices. I'm by necessity disregarding almost all of them. I'm not a court.
When choosing how to allocate my capacity for moral outrage, it's perfectly valid to give preference to people who are not actively pursuing the cause of taking away my rights.
In other words, it's ridiculous if the court is actually getting away with not returning the bond, but as a matter of not shooting myself in the foot, the author of the article shouldn't expect me to go to the barricades with him to push through his interpretation of the constitutional invalidity of traffic tickets only so he can turn around and fuck me over next, if he doesn't run me over first, when I could be on way more important barricades to help people suffering way worse.
When choosing how to allocate my capacity for moral outrage, it's perfectly valid to give preference to people who are not actively pursuing the cause of taking away my rights.
In other words, it's ridiculous if the court is actually getting away with not returning the bond, but as a matter of not shooting myself in the foot, the author of the article shouldn't expect me to go to the barricades with him to push through his interpretation of the constitutional invalidity of traffic tickets only so he can turn around and fuck me over next, if he doesn't run me over first, when I could be on way more important barricades to help people suffering way worse.
You're comparing fighting a traffic ticket to the rights of same-sex marriages?
If an author has a stance on removing the rights of someone just because of their sexual preferences - you're right, I'm calling them out on it. I am in no way blocking their right to their own opinion, but adding my own.
For this author, the two subjects are very much entwined and related.
If an author has a stance on removing the rights of someone just because of their sexual preferences - you're right, I'm calling them out on it. I am in no way blocking their right to their own opinion, but adding my own.
For this author, the two subjects are very much entwined and related.
You know what, I am going to go against the grain of supposedly intelligent people on HN. Your personal vehicle committed a traffic violation. Your license plate was captured. The vehicle is registered in your name, and thus you are liable. Unless you have reported the vehicle stolen, you are responsible for the vehicle.
This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money. I don't agree with automated ticketing. However, if it is clear that the vehicle was speeding, and it is clear that it is your vehicle, and there is no stolen vehicle reported... give me a fucking break.
Maybe it wasn't actually you. But you know who you gave your car to that day. You know who was speeding in your car. Either get them to cough up the cash to you, or deal with the fucking fact that you trusted someone else with your car - clearly, someone who doesn't deserve to be trusted.
I hate cops. I hate stupid laws. But more than that, I hate people who look for loopholes to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. Don't fucking loan out your car if you're this type of asshole.
This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money. I don't agree with automated ticketing. However, if it is clear that the vehicle was speeding, and it is clear that it is your vehicle, and there is no stolen vehicle reported... give me a fucking break.
Maybe it wasn't actually you. But you know who you gave your car to that day. You know who was speeding in your car. Either get them to cough up the cash to you, or deal with the fucking fact that you trusted someone else with your car - clearly, someone who doesn't deserve to be trusted.
I hate cops. I hate stupid laws. But more than that, I hate people who look for loopholes to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. Don't fucking loan out your car if you're this type of asshole.
I think you're missing the point. IANAL, but some law students explained this to me once (I hope to be accurate).
If you drive your vehicle, then park, and leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, and it's a crime, because your action - or inaction - killed somebody. From a criminal standpoint, the last driver - and only the driver - will be liable.
OTOH in this case it was somebody else committing the infringement, be it civil or criminal. For each, there's a procedure. Here, it should have been the driver - not the owner of the car! - the one who got a fine. It's a personal responsibility of the driver, not an "objective one" for the vehicle.
There's simply no mean, in most laws of any state of the world, for which such a responsibility could be transferred from who does the act to the one who owns something which is employed to commit such act.
Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer?
Speeding is an infringement committed by whoever speeds; the vehicle's owner has nothing to do with it. The whole "automated traffic control" systems were started with the wrong foot, without a proper legal basis.
If you drive your vehicle, then park, and leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, and it's a crime, because your action - or inaction - killed somebody. From a criminal standpoint, the last driver - and only the driver - will be liable.
OTOH in this case it was somebody else committing the infringement, be it civil or criminal. For each, there's a procedure. Here, it should have been the driver - not the owner of the car! - the one who got a fine. It's a personal responsibility of the driver, not an "objective one" for the vehicle.
There's simply no mean, in most laws of any state of the world, for which such a responsibility could be transferred from who does the act to the one who owns something which is employed to commit such act.
Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer?
Speeding is an infringement committed by whoever speeds; the vehicle's owner has nothing to do with it. The whole "automated traffic control" systems were started with the wrong foot, without a proper legal basis.
> leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault,
true. It's also true if the brake fails, whether or not you maintained it correctly.
> and it's a crime
false. It's a tort -- a misdeed against the victims, for which they or their heirs can sue you to recover damages. The legal theory is "strict liability." It applies also to farmers whose bulls escape into the village and wreak havoc, and to factories whose molasses tanks collapse and flood streets. The victim need not prove negligence to collect actual damages.
To collect punitive damages the victim does need to prove negligence.
true. It's also true if the brake fails, whether or not you maintained it correctly.
> and it's a crime
false. It's a tort -- a misdeed against the victims, for which they or their heirs can sue you to recover damages. The legal theory is "strict liability." It applies also to farmers whose bulls escape into the village and wreak havoc, and to factories whose molasses tanks collapse and flood streets. The victim need not prove negligence to collect actual damages.
To collect punitive damages the victim does need to prove negligence.
Torts exist in the civil system, not the criminal system. The driver in this scenario would likely be criminally liable for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or one of their many legal equivalents in state law.
>false. It's a tort
They're not mutually exclusive. Criminal negligence exists throughout the common law world.
They're not mutually exclusive. Criminal negligence exists throughout the common law world.
>> Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer?
Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. Why do you hand out your killing utensil to someone else? It's just senseless. Same with your car. It is your car. Hand it to someone else and frankly yes, I blame you for their behavior while using it. At a minimum, I expect you to have knowledge of who is in possession of your vehicle, and that you be willing to offer up their identity in place of your own when they break the law. I have never handed my car to anyone else. I don't understand people who do.
I am sensible enough to agree that it's quite far from the same degree of severity (car vs. gun). But the excuse of "it wasn't me driving my car!" is a copout, and exactly that - an excuse, designed to shove the blame on someone else. Well, someone other than the perpetrator - "it was an unknown person driving my car, even though my car wasn't stolen!".
The worst part is, you know who sped with your car. If you knowingly provided your gun to an acquaintance and they killed someone, would your conscience really be comfortable claiming "I didn't commit the murder... and I know who did it, but I won't tell on them!". Come on now. People only rationalize this because they think that speeding is "normal" and not "a real crime". They know the law has been broken, but because they personally believe it to be a minor "everyman" offense, they make excuses to justify the situation.
tldr; Either you, or the person you allowed to drive your car, broke the law. Grow up and pay the damn ticket. You're not a genius for nitpicking over "it wasn't me and you can't prove that I didn't know who was driving my non-stolen car!" - when clearly you or someone you have authorized to drive your vehicle is at fault.
Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder. Why do you hand out your killing utensil to someone else? It's just senseless. Same with your car. It is your car. Hand it to someone else and frankly yes, I blame you for their behavior while using it. At a minimum, I expect you to have knowledge of who is in possession of your vehicle, and that you be willing to offer up their identity in place of your own when they break the law. I have never handed my car to anyone else. I don't understand people who do.
I am sensible enough to agree that it's quite far from the same degree of severity (car vs. gun). But the excuse of "it wasn't me driving my car!" is a copout, and exactly that - an excuse, designed to shove the blame on someone else. Well, someone other than the perpetrator - "it was an unknown person driving my car, even though my car wasn't stolen!".
The worst part is, you know who sped with your car. If you knowingly provided your gun to an acquaintance and they killed someone, would your conscience really be comfortable claiming "I didn't commit the murder... and I know who did it, but I won't tell on them!". Come on now. People only rationalize this because they think that speeding is "normal" and not "a real crime". They know the law has been broken, but because they personally believe it to be a minor "everyman" offense, they make excuses to justify the situation.
tldr; Either you, or the person you allowed to drive your car, broke the law. Grow up and pay the damn ticket. You're not a genius for nitpicking over "it wasn't me and you can't prove that I didn't know who was driving my non-stolen car!" - when clearly you or someone you have authorized to drive your vehicle is at fault.
You think if someone goes hunting with my gun and commits murder instead, I'm an accessory to murder?
> Swap the knife with a gun. You're probably an accessory to murder.
No, you're not, unless you (or rather, a rational person in your place) had a reason to believe that the person you lent it to was going to commit a crime with it, and the fact that you knew can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that is how it should be.
No, you're not, unless you (or rather, a rational person in your place) had a reason to believe that the person you lent it to was going to commit a crime with it, and the fact that you knew can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that is how it should be.
[deleted]
Write to your representatives. Under current law (nationwide as far as I am aware), it is not not illegal to own a car that breaks the law or lend your car to someone who does so. Further, in this case it was specifically alleged that the poster himself sped, which is not true. He even got the charging officer to admit that there was no evidence that he committed the crime that was being charged.
The issue here is not traffic tickets. If the legislature wants to pass laws that work as you describe they are free to do so (up to public opinion). However, that is not the law. The issue is that the judicial system has drifted away from the law, and it is much better to fight this drift while the immediate stakes are still low.
The issue here is not traffic tickets. If the legislature wants to pass laws that work as you describe they are free to do so (up to public opinion). However, that is not the law. The issue is that the judicial system has drifted away from the law, and it is much better to fight this drift while the immediate stakes are still low.
Nope. You're wrong. If someone rents my house and murders someone in it by drowning someone in the bathtub, I am not liable unless I had a reasonable expectation that the house was procured for the purpose of murder.
If traffic cameras, are in fact, used as evidence for a civil case, then the aggrieved party much show damages as well as having standing. Without damages, there is no civil case.
As far as following the law -- I completely agree; let's start with the biggest law there is -- the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all else, not the least some financially challenged municipality looking for a revenue source using legal gymnastics to prosecute a "civil violation of a criminal law.." whatever the hell that means.
The other aspect of your comment: "you know they were speeding".. that isn't his problem. It's up to the state to prove that a crime was committed by a person charged. The city only has evidence that "a specific car was speeding." That's like saying a specific gun was used to commit a murder.. however that doesn't mean there is evidence that the owner committed the crime.. it doesn't even rise to the level of probable cause without other corroborating evidence.
Did the police actually investigate the speeding? Did they ask the owner who could have been the one driving the car? Was there an investigation at all? No. The police never charged, nor interrogated the owner of the car, nor did they consult with witnesses. The city failed to prove any case. The police officer even admitted to perjury. To be fair, I suspect the cop finds this whole exercise ridiculous as well -- he understands that he is being used as a revenue agent of the city rather than someone to protect people and property from harm.
The whole thing is a Kafkesque farce and I actually appreciate the taxpayer money that this law professor 'wasted' -- if everyone did this, the costs of maintaining an unjust system would outweigh the benefits.
If traffic cameras, are in fact, used as evidence for a civil case, then the aggrieved party much show damages as well as having standing. Without damages, there is no civil case.
As far as following the law -- I completely agree; let's start with the biggest law there is -- the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all else, not the least some financially challenged municipality looking for a revenue source using legal gymnastics to prosecute a "civil violation of a criminal law.." whatever the hell that means.
The other aspect of your comment: "you know they were speeding".. that isn't his problem. It's up to the state to prove that a crime was committed by a person charged. The city only has evidence that "a specific car was speeding." That's like saying a specific gun was used to commit a murder.. however that doesn't mean there is evidence that the owner committed the crime.. it doesn't even rise to the level of probable cause without other corroborating evidence.
Did the police actually investigate the speeding? Did they ask the owner who could have been the one driving the car? Was there an investigation at all? No. The police never charged, nor interrogated the owner of the car, nor did they consult with witnesses. The city failed to prove any case. The police officer even admitted to perjury. To be fair, I suspect the cop finds this whole exercise ridiculous as well -- he understands that he is being used as a revenue agent of the city rather than someone to protect people and property from harm.
The whole thing is a Kafkesque farce and I actually appreciate the taxpayer money that this law professor 'wasted' -- if everyone did this, the costs of maintaining an unjust system would outweigh the benefits.
>This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money.
No, it's not. The guy has the right to defend himself. If the system is so bloated that it generates that much cost it's not his fault.
Want to save taxpayer money? Reform the system but don't deny people the right to defend themselves from legal accusations.
No, it's not. The guy has the right to defend himself. If the system is so bloated that it generates that much cost it's not his fault.
Want to save taxpayer money? Reform the system but don't deny people the right to defend themselves from legal accusations.
Except, it's a much deeper cost. Have you ever gotten a ticket? There's the points on your license, the increase in insurance rates, the risk that another 2 or so infractions at this level will cause your license to automatically get pulled, and I'm sure there's more.
The issue isn't the traffic cameras or people getting away with crimes. The issue is that the government is not operating in a way that is legal.
The people give the government its power and when it doesn't follow the rules that the people set down for it then we don't live in a democracy.
The people give the government its power and when it doesn't follow the rules that the people set down for it then we don't live in a democracy.
Do you not understand that a city's mayor is not allowed to make up new forms of law without constitutional protection, or do you think that's unimportant because the amount of money in this case was so small?
Criminal liability does not work that way.
I don't think it was so much about the parking ticket but proving a point about the gross violations of power that the city was committing. Ultimately the person responsible should pay the fine, but it's unacceptable that a city picks and chooses parts of the law that it wants to follow. It's even crazier that there appears to be some contractual arrangement with a private company to issue some quota of speeding fines!
>The vehicle is registered in your name, and thus you are liable.
What law says that, though? If that actually was what the law said, fine. But where is the proof that is what the law says?
What law says that, though? If that actually was what the law said, fine. But where is the proof that is what the law says?
Reading something like this makes me sad.
We have a teacher at a law school that wastes everyones time by appealing a traffic ticket because the legal basis isn't sound enough.
Did the city issue a ticket to someone whose car was parked at the time? That would be something you should appeal!
Did the city issue a ticket to the owner of a vehicle instead of the driver, because they have no way to identify the driver? It sounds like this was the case. In that case, the proper thing to do is to inform the city of the identity of the actual driver.
But to launch an appeal because you don't want to pay your partner's or your kid's speeding ticket... that doesn't sound fair.
We have a teacher at a law school that wastes everyones time by appealing a traffic ticket because the legal basis isn't sound enough.
Did the city issue a ticket to someone whose car was parked at the time? That would be something you should appeal!
Did the city issue a ticket to the owner of a vehicle instead of the driver, because they have no way to identify the driver? It sounds like this was the case. In that case, the proper thing to do is to inform the city of the identity of the actual driver.
But to launch an appeal because you don't want to pay your partner's or your kid's speeding ticket... that doesn't sound fair.
They charged him personally (not his car) with a crime he did not commit. And, he spent twice the cost of the ticket to get his appeal heard, and has not gotten that money returned.
> because the legal basis isn't sound enough.
He wasn't driving the car!
> I wasn’t driving the car. In fact, at the time I was in a faculty meeting at the law school where I teach.
He wasn't driving the car!
> I wasn’t driving the car. In fact, at the time I was in a faculty meeting at the law school where I teach.
Is there proof HE broke the law? Only an allegation that SOMEONE broke the law. When does it become his duty to prove innocence?
Also, you're missing the point.
Also, you're missing the point.
He answers his whys near the bottom
I fought it via mail. It took multiple round trips. At each step the potential fine more than doubled. If I did not respond correctly or in time, I waved my right to appeal. The appeal paperwork contradicted itself. (Page 1: You must do X or we will reject your appeal. Page 2: You must not do X or we will reject your appeal). I had to send a passport photo less than 30 days old of myself in, but photos taken with electronic cameras are not allowed.
In the end, I sent a letter. The city of San Francisco is not obligated to inform me of a successful appeal, so either I beat the ticket, or some day (maybe years from now) they will issue a warrant for my arrest.
This isn't even guilty until proven innocent. 100% of the evidence presented against me proved my innocence, and I will be in legal limbo forever.
[edit: In a special kafka-esque twist, the only reason I was able to fill out the paperwork successfully is because the telephone operator at the SF courthouse took pity on me. There is a number to call for clarification, but no one picks up that phone. So, your best bet is to get your legal advice from the operator.]