If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MassLive)   Fewer people are contesting traffic tickets since Massachusetts started charging a fee to plead not guilty   (masslive.com) divider line 123
    More: Obvious, Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicles, Supreme Judicial Court, small claims court, fees, Insurance Board of Appeals, trial courts  
•       •       •

8262 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-24 08:25:08 AM  
Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.
 
2012-06-24 08:46:59 AM  
This is why I'm glad that I didn't go to University in Massachusetts. When I came to visit, years later, I was shocked by the absurdity of the commonwealth.

Sadly, I have to deal Massholes on a daily basis now.

/I miss Ohio
 
2012-06-24 08:53:59 AM  

St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.


Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?
 
2012-06-24 08:59:54 AM  

born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?


Not really. The fees don't cover the cost of the court. I didn't read the article, but do you get your money back if you are actually found not guilty?
 
2012-06-24 09:06:40 AM  

EvilEgg: I didn't read the article, but do you get your money back if you are actually found not guilty?


For a New Englander, you don't seem to understand a lot about Massachusetts
 
2012-06-24 09:07:20 AM  

born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?


It's just the natural transition from "You have nothing to worry about if you're innocent" to "You have nothing to worry about if you can always avoid the police".
 
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM  
This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?
 
2012-06-24 10:08:56 AM  

Aar1012: EvilEgg: I didn't read the article, but do you get your money back if you are actually found not guilty?

For a New Englander, you don't seem to understand a lot about MassTaxachusetts


That might help.

A friend here in NYC got his traffic ticket thrown out because he proved to the judge he fixed the problem in the time allotted by him. He still had to pay and $80 service fee.
 
2012-06-24 10:10:04 AM  
GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM

This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


yep.
 
2012-06-24 10:10:17 AM  
well at least the rich can afford justice.
..
 
2012-06-24 10:11:03 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


This.

And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional? If someone that was poor got a traffic ticket, wouldn't that be unfair to them since they couldn't afford the court cost?

Oh, and fark the police.
 
2012-06-24 10:11:31 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


Just asking, but isn't it called Taxachusetes for a reason?

Doesn't it have one of the Highest tax systems in the nation?
 
2012-06-24 10:12:12 AM  
Here's a simple solution: Bill the issuing officer for the court costs if the ticket is overturned.

The people will be happy because they wont be on the hook for expenses when they've done nothing wrong.
The courts will be happy because they get their money.
The police will be incentivised to only write good tickets.
 
2012-06-24 10:14:12 AM  

machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?


What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?
 
2012-06-24 10:14:42 AM  
sounds like here in maine. If you get a ticket for anything. your licence is suspended and you have to pay an extra 25.00 to the dmv to get it unsuspended after you pay off the ticket.
 
2012-06-24 10:16:59 AM  
I don't know about Massachusetts, but down here the budget for the judicial branch has been cut by almost 30% in the last five years. Lots of lay-offs and some furlough days. Adding on a few fees here and there could minimize the impact, but the same legislature that cut our budget has to approve any additional fees.

Next fiscal year's budget is 8.6% smaller than this year's.Through some miracle of financing *snerk*, the legislature's budget was only cut by 2.3%.

Gee, I wonder how that happened?
 
2012-06-24 10:17:05 AM  
www.ushmm.org

"To be fair, the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege is indeed protecting freedom - the freedom of dishonourable action; protecting citizens who aim to lead their lives in the morass stretching between the that which is legal and that which is illegal. That is, in the realm of unscrupulous wangling, the realm of thorough-paced rascals endowed with a wide knowledge of criminal law."

- Roland Freisler
 
2012-06-24 10:21:13 AM  

Hermione_Granger: GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM

This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

yep.


No and it is completely unconstitutional.

What do they do if you refuse to enter a plea? The right to remain silent was in response to church courts, where if you pled not guilty to be a catholic you were renouncing your (catholic) God and you surely did not want to plead guilty to a thought crime (believing the Catholic church was correct) and be burned or tortured.
 
2012-06-24 10:22:32 AM  

TheZorker: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

Just asking, but isn't it called Taxachusetes for a reason?

Doesn't it have one of the Highest tax systems in the nation?


As an honorary Masshole from NYS, no.

Sales and income taxes are way lower, property taxes are lower, and no school tax.
 
2012-06-24 10:23:41 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


I think there's more overlap between Tea Party and Sovereign Citizens than you realize.

The court costs bullshiat is about a 40/60 split for various states. The East and Midwest love screwing everyone, the South and West not so much.
 
2012-06-24 10:23:52 AM  

Honest Bender: machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?

What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?


I'm going with Eighth Amendment. Innocent people should not be fined, so charging any fine at all to an innocent person is by definition excessive.
 
2012-06-24 10:24:43 AM  

Honest Bender: Here's a simple solution: Bill the issuing officer for the court costs if the ticket is overturned.

The people will be happy because they wont be on the hook for expenses when they've done nothing wrong.
The courts will be happy because they get their money.
The police will be incentivised to only write good tickets.


You grossly over estimate judges' better nature.

However, if you are acquitted of a serious felony in Missouri (class A or B) the state does have to pay.
 
2012-06-24 10:25:50 AM  

born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?


That's pretty much the case at least in MA. I lived there for 32 years and received many, many tickets. Some I even deserved! But I quickly figured out that challenging the iffy ones was pretty much a waste of a day. I had a cop profile us by waiting in a bar parking lot and then following us and pulling us over to see if I'd been drinking, which I wasn't. So I got a ticket for "merging too closely" as some part of "improper turning". He said I cut a guy off changing lanes. Me and the other 3 people in the car all disagreed and we all showed up to contest it, but I had to pay anyhow.

I think the way they should implement the justice system is that everyone gets a decent free lawyer regardless of their financial situation. If you're found innocent, the DA has to pay all of your costs including your time. No pleas. Everyone that the state feels has committed a crime gets a full trial.

This would mean the end of prison stuffing, rounding up the 'usual suspects', about 95% of the big time horseshiat in the judicial system, and it'd be a lot cheaper after the first round of DA's gets fired for costing more than they brought in.

Only very serious crimes with clear cut perpetrators would ever be arrested or charged. The iffy stuff would get soft pedaled until the DA was absolutely sure a jury would convict.

The judicial branch is also not a budget balancing tool. Voting in some politicians who understand the basic home budgeting techniques of spending only on important stuff and to stop spending when you're out of money would go a long ways towards improving things.

This has the same apparent mouth feel as charging your small kids to eat and sleep at your house because you blew the family budget on 50 cases of beer. Cut it out!
 
2012-06-24 10:26:48 AM  
media.masslive.com

CSB:

Ran into something similar in Fort Collins a few years ago. I had backed into a street-side parking space. Got out of work to find a $25 ticket for illegal parking - my front tire was more than a foot from the curb. No shiat, I backed in because it was safer when pulling out into the crazy traffic zooming by the frat house. And just about every other car parked "legally" on the street had a front tire more than a foot from the curb. Plead my case to the city judge's biatch (a $25 surcharge for that) two weeks later - he said he agreed it was safer but that was the law. Said I could go to the judge but I'd have to pay a $50 surcharge for court costs, but the judge might dismiss the $25 ticket.

/keep us $afe.
 
2012-06-24 10:27:59 AM  
Well, when your entire government and police are run by the mob, what do you expect?
 
2012-06-24 10:28:39 AM  

Honest Bender: machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?

What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?


i'm not a lawyer - but maybe the fourth?
if you are not guilty of a crime how can they reasonable seize funds punitively?

also - there's really no need to be nasty. i'm sure there's no shortage of people whose first reaction to reading that headline was to question the legality of this policy.

at the very least it's a bit of a brow-raiser. no reason it can't be discussed.
 
2012-06-24 10:28:43 AM  

EvilEgg: born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?

Not really. The fees don't cover the cost of the court. I didn't read the article, but do you get your money back if you are actually found not guilty?



Yes, but it's a $33.75 processing fee for administrative handling of your return funds. Plus tax.
 
2012-06-24 10:28:44 AM  
Here's a simple solution: Bill the issuing officer for the court costs if the ticket is overturned.

Yeah, that'll definitely happen. But it might create even more legal tangles when the first cop they try it on tasers and arrests the court clerk.
 
2012-06-24 10:29:43 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those


You're confusing "fee for service" and "fee for fark-you-pay-me-anyway".
 
2012-06-24 10:31:53 AM  

foxyshadis:
The East and Midwest love screwing everyone, the South and West not so much.


Yes, indeed. The South and West prefer to selectively screw.
 
2012-06-24 10:33:08 AM  
And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?
 
2012-06-24 10:34:10 AM  

St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.


Good old liberals.
 
2012-06-24 10:35:04 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


In Knoxville, TN, if the officer doesn't show up, you have to come back on another date when the officer can show up. It's completely ludicrous.
 
2012-06-24 10:35:10 AM  
Yeah. This is a good idea.
 
2012-06-24 10:35:45 AM  

Gunderson: And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?


Build more prisons and call it "Job creation", probably getting a lot of them re-elected...
 
2012-06-24 10:36:04 AM  
Disregard. This fee is to appeal. You get your one trial in front of the magisgtrate. The fees are to appeal.
 
2012-06-24 10:37:13 AM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.


Look, if you can't afford the $75 it takes to appeal a ticket, you haven't earned the right to use the court system. Get a job and maybe you can get an appeal.

Why should taxpayers who don't even use the court system have to pay for it? If a private company was doing that we'd call it theft.
 
2012-06-24 10:37:26 AM  
Clearly the solution is a larger, more intrusive government and bureaucracy. This will include higher taxes, but it will definitely be worth it.
 
2012-06-24 10:44:34 AM  

italie: Gunderson: And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?

Build more prisons and call it "Job creation", probably getting a lot of them re-elected...


Considering the new residents won't be voters anymore anyways.
 
2012-06-24 10:46:12 AM  
What's next, plead guilty to murder or incur all court costs?
 
2012-06-24 10:46:23 AM  

Honest Bender: Here's a simple solution: Bill the issuing officer for the court costs if the ticket is overturned.

The people will be happy because they wont be on the hook for expenses when they've done nothing wrong.
The courts will be happy because they get their money.
The police will be incentivised to only write good tickets.


That of course would be the sensible way to do it, but that never happens....
 
2012-06-24 10:47:54 AM  

enry: Sales and income taxes are way lower,


When I moved to New Hampshire, I did a stint in retail. I worked at the front so I dealt with returns and questions. New Hampshire has no sales tax and I worked on the border between NH and Mass. I would love hearing the Mass residents either

1. Talking about how they're here to avoid the sales tax
2. Complaining about how we didn't have something because they drove from *Insert town that passes three different stores that has the product in stock* because they wanted to save on sales tax
3. Bought an item in Mass and wanted to return it and rebuy it to get their tax money back. (I always enjoyed telling them 'no' and seeing the look on their face when I said, point blank, that it was tax fraud

Whenever I would hear about the sales tax of Mass, I would shake my head since I knew that the 6.25% sales tax was NOTHING compared to my home state of Ohio. Ohio's state rate is 5.5% but the counties can add on to it. I'm surprised that Mass hasn't caught onto that.
 
2012-06-24 10:50:06 AM  

Snarfangel: Honest Bender: machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?

What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?

I'm going with Eighth Amendment. Innocent people should not be fined, so charging any fine at all to an innocent person is by definition excessive.


Pathman: i'm not a lawyer - but maybe the fourth?
if you are not guilty of a crime how can they reasonable seize funds punitively?

also - there's really no need to be nasty. i'm sure there's no shortage of people whose first reaction to reading that headline was to question the legality of this policy.

at the very least it's a bit of a brow-raiser. no reason it can't be discussed.


IANAL either, but I suppose it could be argued that this constitutes a Bill of Attainder (Art I Sec 9) - punishing someone without a trial

And I would counter the "where is it prohibited" argument by saying that if someone thinks it is acceptable for the government, under color of authority, to charge someone with a crime, and then fine them because of that charge, even if they are innocent, then that person has a seriously strange way of determining what is fair play in government.
 
2012-06-24 10:50:56 AM  
"Everything is Illegal in Massachusetts"
Link
 
2012-06-24 10:50:58 AM  

Aar1012: Whenever I would hear about the sales tax of Mass, I would shake my head since I knew that the 6.25% sales tax was NOTHING compared to my home state of Ohio. Ohio's state rate is 5.5% but the counties can add on to it. I'm surprised that Mass hasn't caught onto that.


Doesn't Boston do this?
 
2012-06-24 10:55:10 AM  
csb: When I lived in Austin TX, I got a ticket I thought was unjust and I took it to court. They dismissed immediately on 'lack of evidence'. Next ticket I got, same result...dismissed on lack of evidence. I got a lot of tickets for whatever reason...speed traps, I suck, who knows. But I took every one to court - probably a dozen in the 12 years I lived there - and every one was dismissed without a fight on lack of evidence. In fact, all the other people in the courtrooms with me got their speeding tickets dismissed as well. I don't know if it still works like that down there but it was fun while it lasted. My coworkers were always amused with the collection of tickets and dismissals that I kept tacked to my cube.
 
2012-06-24 10:55:15 AM  
Eh... Cost me $25 to beat a $100 traffic violation last year.

Helped that I have a near-perfect driving record and that ticket was the only ticket I've received in 20+ years of driving, of course.

What pissed me off more than the fee to contest it was having to sit in New Bedford Trail Court for 4 hours waiting to meet with a court clerk and the ticketing officer to contest it...
 
2012-06-24 10:56:12 AM  
The solution is to require government at all levels to fund itself 100% through tax revenue (and make it illegal for the government to borrow money).

All non-tax income sources need to be kept in a separate fund and distributed back to the taxpayers as a credit.

This will prevent the corruption that is inevitable if law enforcement is preformed for profit.
 
2012-06-24 10:56:48 AM  

walkerhound: [media.masslive.com image 640x351]

CSB:

Ran into something similar in Fort Collins a few years ago. I had backed into a street-side parking space. Got out of work to find a $25 ticket for illegal parking - my front tire was more than a foot from the curb. No shiat, I backed in because it was safer when pulling out into the crazy traffic zooming by the frat house. And just about every other car parked "legally" on the street had a front tire more than a foot from the curb. Plead my case to the city judge's biatch (a $25 surcharge for that) two weeks later - he said he agreed it was safer but that was the law. Said I could go to the judge but I'd have to pay a $50 surcharge for court costs, but the judge might dismiss the $25 ticket.

/keep us $afe.


Sounds like a municipal ordinance. There has never been a municipal fine other than "you owe us more money to live/work/visit here, and we want you to prostrate yourself before us for forgiveness." Parking enforcement is the worst, with code enforcement and the permit process being the next, if you aren't part of the inside network.
 
2012-06-24 10:59:24 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: The solution is to require government at all levels to fund itself 100% through tax revenue (and make it illegal for the government to borrow money).

All non-tax income sources need to be kept in a separate fund and distributed back to the taxpayers as a credit.

This will prevent the corruption that is inevitable if law enforcement is preformed for profit.


All this leads to is gouging out-of-towners and subversives they want to move out. Given that most towns already do that routinely out of plain old xenophobia, what good would attaching a profit motive do?
 
2012-06-24 11:05:42 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

Look, if you can't afford the $75 it takes to appeal a ticket, you haven't earned the right to use the court system. Get a job and maybe you can get an appeal.

Why should taxpayers who don't even use the court system have to pay for it? If a private company was doing that we'd call it theft.


I know you're trolling, but that's actually a fantastic argument. In the civil court world, the party who brings the action has to pay court costs and fees, and only has the opportunity to recover them if they win. Since the party bringing the action in criminal cases is the state, it only makes sense that they'd be on the hook unless they can prove their case. There's precedent, it's logical, it's symmetrical with civil cases... basically everything but "profitable" which is all traffic court is really ever meant to be.
 
2012-06-24 11:07:30 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: This will prevent the corruption that is inevitable if law enforcement is preformed for profit.


Yeah and who in law enforcement is going to get behind this?
 
2012-06-24 11:10:33 AM  

foxyshadis: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

I think there's more overlap between Tea Party and Sovereign Citizens than you realize.

The court costs bullshiat is about a 40/60 split for various states. The East and Midwest love screwing everyone, the South and West not so much.


A co-worker found the court costs here are $160. Again, no idea if that is normal or not.
 
2012-06-24 11:11:25 AM  
Hey, if you wanted to be able to plead not guilty, you should have been born to wealthier parents. What makes you think you deserved to be treated as equal under the law, peon?
 
2012-06-24 11:13:12 AM  

Abox: csb: When I lived in Austin TX, I got a ticket I thought was unjust and I took it to court. They dismissed immediately on 'lack of evidence'. Next ticket I got, same result...dismissed on lack of evidence. I got a lot of tickets for whatever reason...speed traps, I suck, who knows. But I took every one to court - probably a dozen in the 12 years I lived there - and every one was dismissed without a fight on lack of evidence. In fact, all the other people in the courtrooms with me got their speeding tickets dismissed as well. I don't know if it still works like that down there but it was fun while it lasted. My coworkers were always amused with the collection of tickets and dismissals that I kept tacked to my cube.


I got 4 tickets at once in Miami. (Don't ask). All 4 dismissed, as was everyone else's in the court that day.
 
2012-06-24 11:14:06 AM  

Snarfangel: Honest Bender: machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?

What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?

I'm going with Eighth Amendment. Innocent people should not be fined, so charging any fine at all to an innocent person is by definition excessive.


I was thinking along these lines too. I don't delude myself by thinking that Mass. and of course the other states that do this don't have their asses covered with legal language.

But... it seems to me that we also have a fundamental right to due process as presented in the Fifth. You have the right to a trial by jury(or otherwise... at least a review); a right to face your accuser. You shouldn't have to pay for these rights.

Consider this. At one point, some states charged fees to vote. Is this much different? They both adversely affect the poor. They both charged a fee to exercise a fundamental human and/or Constitutional right.

Is it possible to also compare it to a bill of attainder? "A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William Rehnquist

In this case it singles out the accused. Not the guilty... merely the accused, which comprise also the innocent. A state shouldn't have the ability to punish the innocent.

Prolly not. As I said, I'm sure that... Mass, and the other states that do this, have their butts covered.

I guess I look at the Constitution and think about what it should mean. I guess that's why I'm not in charge, among other things.

And I'm sure the Fark Constitutional Scholars will be along shortly to shred me on minutiae and case law.

/my "h" key isn't working very well... so if I appear to be speaking in "Dick Van Dyke Cockney" or pseudo Irish... please forgive.
//Damn... zamboni must've started on the vodak early.
 
2012-06-24 11:15:22 AM  
born_yesterday:doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation

Not really. The ticket revenue goes to the cop's town, but the $25 fee goes to the state. For the cop it is much better if you don't contest it.

leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright?

If the ticket is a points-on-license violation, then it is *always* better to contest it. A $25 fee to try to avoid a $1000 increase in your insurance rates? Easy decision.

If it is just a parking ticket, or other non-points violation, then yeah, just pay it.
 
2012-06-24 11:17:09 AM  

enry: TheZorker: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

Just asking, but isn't it called Taxachusetes for a reason?

Doesn't it have one of the Highest tax systems in the nation?

As an honorary Masshole from NYS, no.

Sales and income taxes are way lower, property taxes are lower, and no school tax.


Income Tax rates

Mass: Highest Flat* State Income Tax

(Granulated tax rates may be higher - 21 states have % rates lower then Mass regardless of bracket, including the other flat/no income tax states)

Sales Taxes

36 states have lower - 2 are the same as the 6.25%

...I'm sorry. What were you saying?
 
2012-06-24 11:21:33 AM  

italie: Gunderson: And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?

Build more prisons and call it "Job creation", probably getting a lot of them re-elected...


I know your reply was tongue-in-cheek, but what is happening around here is that alot of drivers either can't afford all the BS driving fees, tickets, insurance or are not driving legally to begin with. So, rather than pay the tickets, they let their licenses get suspended and don't give a crap. The jails are already too full and prohibitive costly to operate and because of NIMBY, no more are being built, so basically the argument is:

If you put someone in jail for traffic violations, who are you going to let out to make room for him?
The rapist? The drug dealer? or the gang banger?

So in summary, the net result of excessive fees/costs associated with driving is that the fees make driving more dangerous, not safer, as more drivers either disregard the law for financial reasons, and are more like to flee a traffic stop knowing they will be arrested if they pull over
 
2012-06-24 11:23:52 AM  
I received a $300 ticket for a stop sign in Chelsea, cost me $25 to appeal, I had to wait about a year to get a court date, take a day off of work, and explain (with a map) that police cant see through trees. I hate chelsea, I hate mass...All these fees are just another tax to the citizens for the failed forced healthcare and failed big dig....where the dems just dumped money on worthless and over priced unions...
 
2012-06-24 11:25:04 AM  

tarhammer: born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

This would mean the end of prison stuffing, rounding up the 'usual suspects', about 95% of the big time horseshiat in the judicial system, and it'd be a lot cheaper after the first round of DA's gets fired for costing more than they brought in.


www.filmreference.com

Does not agree
/hot, like bergman
 
2012-06-24 11:37:25 AM  
I'm constantly amazed how otherwise intelligent people continually fail to understand basic economics.

1. Whenever your tax (fee) something, you get less of it.

Taxing appeals means less appeals.
 
2012-06-24 11:37:44 AM  

midnite_farker: /hot, like bergman


Damn straight. Between her and Rita Hayworth, the forties weren't so bad. WWII included.
 
2012-06-24 11:42:52 AM  

skylabdown: I'm constantly amazed how otherwise intelligent people continually fail to understand basic economics.

1. Whenever your tax (fee) something, you get less of it.

Taxing appeals means less appeals.


Personally, I'm constantly amazed how otherwise intelligent people fail to understand basic proofreading.

/I'm so sorry... I couldn't help it.
 
2012-06-24 11:44:36 AM  

Gunderson: And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?


I don't believe it would require every citizen, though it might require quite a few.

Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in there?"

Thoreau replied, "Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?"


But I agree with you entirely. I see this as a failure of citizens who can pay, to refuse to pay, and thus avoid their civil duty to protest.

But I also don't understand, given the numbers of lawyers, law students, and politicians, why this seems unopposed by lawyers, law students, and politicians that might a) see opposing this as the right thing to do, or b) see opposing this as a way to get great publicity.

(I was similarly surprised that so few lawyers took any real steps towards opposing John Yoo, even after reading countless lawyers writing in opposition to him in newspapers, online, on blogs...)
 
2012-06-24 11:48:18 AM  
I always love the subtext in traffic ticket threads that people just shouldn't have to pay them - that, guilty or not, somehow there should be no penalty. Sure, you knowingly did 70 in a 45 zone, but... somehow... that doesn't count. Now, this particular issue seems stupid and ripe for abuse, sure. But sometimes the "how dare you ticket me!" stuff starts to get as nasty as "bad man hurt dog" lunacy.
 
2012-06-24 11:50:05 AM  
But, there is so much more wool shorn of sheeple this way.

The disconnect between the butthurt orderlies and the "people" has reached critical mass.
Teach your children well and buy ammo.

Laws are supposed to be by the people, not a few nuts. And we are long overdue for housecleaning.
Step up, grab your balls and make your government afraid, very afraid!
The system is there, you just have to put down the remote control and kick some ass, your own.
 
2012-06-24 11:57:38 AM  

skylabdown: I'm constantly amazed how otherwise intelligent people continually fail to understand basic economics.

1. Whenever your tax (fee) something, you get less of it.

Taxing appeals means less appeals.


So we tax income to keep those incomes down eh?

I actually agree.
 
2012-06-24 12:03:29 PM  

St_Francis_P: It's just the natural transition from "You have nothing to worry about if you're innocent" to "You have nothing to worry about if you can always avoid the police".


In Texas it's more "You have nothing to worry about if you're white and upright."
 
2012-06-24 12:11:39 PM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


Yes, because wanting to quell the government's reach into our pockets somehow means we want them to charge as a "fee" (tax) for a constitutional right that we have to plead not guilty of a crime and face our accusers.

Either you're a troll or the biggest liberal douchebag i've seen in weeks. Grow up.
 
2012-06-24 12:15:46 PM  

macadamnut: Aar1012: Whenever I would hear about the sales tax of Mass, I would shake my head since I knew that the 6.25% sales tax was NOTHING compared to my home state of Ohio. Ohio's state rate is 5.5% but the counties can add on to it. I'm surprised that Mass hasn't caught onto that.

Doesn't Boston do this?


No, I'm still paying 6.25%. Of course, I'm also paying an extra ~1% in income taxes, which'll come out to about $200 out of pocket.

/Michigan resident "visiting" MA for the summer.
//Get to do my taxes 4 times this year instead of twice like last year, just to see if there are any weird subsidies that'll make up the ~1% difference between MI and MA income tax rates, and to see if the 1040 gives better discounts than the 1040EZ.
 
2012-06-24 12:26:55 PM  

Fade2black: Either you're a troll or the biggest liberal douchebag i've seen in weeks.


A lot of people are mislabeled as "trolls", which suggest that their expressions are voluntary and intentional.

The behavior is more like how a single-cell organism responds to stimulus.
 
2012-06-24 12:37:32 PM  
Am I reading this right? If you get a ticket and want to contest it, you have to pay $25 to get it in front of a judge? How does that not violate the sixth amendment right to a trial? If having to pay to vote is unconstitutional, how can poll trials be legal?
 
2012-06-24 12:38:11 PM  

Gunderson: And if every citizen turned around and told the state "F-U. We're not going to pay any tickets.", what would they do?


They would hunt us down one by one. Remember the full force of the state emanates from the point of a gun.
 
2012-06-24 12:39:41 PM  

Karac: How does that not violate the sixth amendment right to a trial?


Criminal vs. Civil?
 
2012-06-24 12:43:48 PM  
Not to turn this into a political thing, but why is it that democrat states are taxed to death and often broke off their ass (looking in your general direction California), yet people look at republicans like they are the crooks?
 
2012-06-24 12:44:14 PM  

Snarfangel: Honest Bender: machoprogrammer: And seriously, how is this not unconstitutional?

What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?

I'm going with Eighth Amendment. Innocent people should not be fined, so charging any fine at all to an innocent person is by definition excessive.


I thought the First. "Petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and all that.
 
2012-06-24 12:44:18 PM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


I know, right? If we all just paid more taxes, then government would get smaller and stay out of our business and we'd have more freedom.
 
2012-06-24 12:48:17 PM  
The solution is simple. Stay the fark out of Massachusetts. If you're already there, get the fark out of Massachusetts.
 
2012-06-24 12:50:18 PM  

Dired: I always love the subtext in traffic ticket threads that people just shouldn't have to pay them - that, guilty or not, somehow there should be no penalty. Sure, you knowingly did 70 in a 45 zone, but... somehow... that doesn't count. Now, this particular issue seems stupid and ripe for abuse, sure. But sometimes the "how dare you ticket me!" stuff starts to get as nasty as "bad man hurt dog" lunacy.


Actually, I think in this case, the complaint is, if not guilty, one still has to pay. It is not "how dare you ticket me!" rather, how dare you charge me for something I am found not guilty of.
 
2012-06-24 12:57:34 PM  

JMel: Not to turn this into a political thing, but why is it that democrat states are taxed to death and often broke off their ass (looking in your general direction California), yet people look at republicans like they are the crooks?


Now you're getting the hang of it. This is what happens when you encourage people to depend more on the state then themselves. See also: NY.
 
2012-06-24 12:57:42 PM  

GAT_00: So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


When I lived in MD, it wasn't. I got pulled over, and issued over $1000 in tickets once, and all it cost me was an hour and a half of my time. Speeding, reckless, illegal lane change, etc. Court date was the day before Thanksgiving. I showed up, the trooper didn't. NOT GUILTY, your Honor. Thanks have a nice day.
 
2012-06-24 01:15:17 PM  
sucks to live there
 
2012-06-24 01:31:25 PM  

Aar1012: enry: Sales and income taxes are way lower,

When I moved to New Hampshire, I did a stint in retail. I worked at the front so I dealt with returns and questions. New Hampshire has no sales tax and I worked on the border between NH and Mass. I would love hearing the Mass residents either

1. Talking about how they're here to avoid the sales tax
2. Complaining about how we didn't have something because they drove from *Insert town that passes three different stores that has the product in stock* because they wanted to save on sales tax
3. Bought an item in Mass and wanted to return it and rebuy it to get their tax money back. (I always enjoyed telling them 'no' and seeing the look on their face when I said, point blank, that it was tax fraud

Whenever I would hear about the sales tax of Mass, I would shake my head since I knew that the 6.25% sales tax was NOTHING compared to my home state of Ohio. Ohio's state rate is 5.5% but the counties can add on to it. I'm surprised that Mass hasn't caught onto that.


There are no county governments in Massachusetts, counties only exist as administrative districts.
 
2012-06-24 01:39:10 PM  

JMel: looking in your general direction California


Two things to consider:
1. California has more residents than any other state. That means there's more cost associated with governing our state. Primarily with welfare services.
2. We pay out more in Federal taxes than we get back.
 
2012-06-24 01:40:20 PM  

TheZorker: enry: TheZorker: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

Just asking, but isn't it called Taxachusetes for a reason?

Doesn't it have one of the Highest tax systems in the nation?

As an honorary Masshole from NYS, no.

Sales and income taxes are way lower, property taxes are lower, and no school tax.

Income Tax rates

Mass: Highest Flat* State Income Tax

(Granulated tax rates may be higher - 21 states have % rates lower then Mass regardless of bracket, including the other flat/no income tax states)

Sales Taxes

36 states have lower - 2 are the same as the 6.25%

...I'm sorry. What were you saying?


The total tax liability for a Massachusetts resident is actually rather low. No city or county income/sales taxes, no taxes on clothes or groceries, no county taxes at all. Property, income, sales, and meals taxes are pretty much it and only the property taxes and a very small meals tax (.25%) are local.
 
2012-06-24 02:06:00 PM  

GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?


In California the court costs are included as a part of the citation, regardless of whether you go to court. This is how, once you add the various fees and penalty assessments, we get from a $35 ticket (for, say, speeding 1-15 over) to a $230 ticket. Want to go to traffic school? That's another $60 processing fee.
 
2012-06-24 02:09:57 PM  

Aar1012: enry: Sales and income taxes are way lower,

When I moved to New Hampshire, I did a stint in retail. I worked at the front so I dealt with returns and questions. New Hampshire has no sales tax and I worked on the border between NH and Mass. I would love hearing the Mass residents either

1. Talking about how they're here to avoid the sales tax
2. Complaining about how we didn't have something because they drove from *Insert town that passes three different stores that has the product in stock* because they wanted to save on sales tax
3. Bought an item in Mass and wanted to return it and rebuy it to get their tax money back. (I always enjoyed telling them 'no' and seeing the look on their face when I said, point blank, that it was tax fraud

Whenever I would hear about the sales tax of Mass, I would shake my head since I knew that the 6.25% sales tax was NOTHING compared to my home state of Ohio. Ohio's state rate is 5.5% but the counties can add on to it. I'm surprised that Mass hasn't caught onto that.


California is like that and there are places where state tax+local tax is over 10%.
 
2012-06-24 02:21:33 PM  
last ticket i got was for illegal parking - and i was in my driveway. i contested it and won, then had to pay 3/4 of the original fine as "cost of court".

/not far from Action Park
 
2012-06-24 02:26:18 PM  
This is basically the case anyway -- if you want to contest a ticket, you have to take a day off work and go down to the courthouse to argue with a judge who has no incentive not to take your money. That's why so few courts have "off-business" hours -- to make simply going along and paying up the easiest course of action. It's just a revenue stream in disguise.

/liberal
//not anti-tax
 
2012-06-24 02:31:17 PM  

Honest Bender: What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?


I'm going with "No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" imposing court fees on a guilty verdict or even a plea of no contest is one thing, but if a person pleads not guilty and isn't convicted, I don't see how the fark this possibly passed the laugh test.
 
2012-06-24 02:49:48 PM  

Honest Bender: JMel: looking in your general direction California

Two things to consider:
1. California has more residents than any other state. That means there's more cost associated with governing our state. Primarily with welfare services.
2. We pay out more in Federal taxes than we get back.


Texas has the 2nd highest population, New York 3rd.

CA = democrats = high taxes
TX = republicans = low taxes
NY = democrats = high taxes

This is unscientific of course.
 
2012-06-24 03:03:42 PM  

Honest Bender: What constitutional right would this violate? Have you actually read the constitution?


A number of them.

The due process clause.

An argument could be made for the 5th amendment right of self incrimination. Basically that this is forcing a guilty plea.

Etc.
 
2012-06-24 03:06:16 PM  

Honest Bender: Here's a simple solution: Bill the issuing officer for the court costs if the ticket is overturned.

The people will be happy because they wont be on the hook for expenses when they've done nothing wrong.
The courts will be happy because they get their money.
The police will be incentivised to only write good tickets.


take a police officer to court if they aren't getting media blitzed and see what happens. you'll end up just paying more.
 
2012-06-24 03:14:09 PM  

Honest Bender: Karac: How does that not violate the sixth amendment right to a trial?

Criminal vs. Civil?


Unless one could somehow consider the government an individual or a private entity, we aren't talking about civil cases.
 
2012-06-24 03:25:50 PM  

KrispyKritter: last ticket i got was for illegal parking - and i was in my driveway. i contested it and won, then had to pay 3/4 of the original fine as "cost of court".

/not far from Action Park


Exactly what is wrong with the system. Innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window with this. You just paid a fee to remain innocent. I believe in some circles they call this extortion.
 
2012-06-24 04:05:21 PM  
I swear this is so wrong it must be illegal... somehow.
 
2012-06-24 04:19:25 PM  

born_yesterday: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Not to delve into hyperbole here, but doesn't that mean a law enforcement officer can guarantee revenue just by issuing a citation, no matter how ridiculous, leading to a cost/benefit analysis of whether to pay the ticket outright? Isn't this akin to jailing someone even after a not guilty jury verdict, just because they plead not guilty?


Yup. That's the whole idea--remove the notion of being able to meaningfully contest it.


What we need is a simple rule: You're found not guilty and the court pays your reasonable defense costs, the court pays you the fine that you would have paid if you had been found guilty and the court pays you an hourly rate equal to last year's income / 2000 with a minimum rate of minimum wage. (The last is considered earned income for tax purposes.)

The would be a lot more careful with the quality of tickets and arrests.
 
2012-06-24 04:23:33 PM  
I wish the court fees in Florida were that low. That would be nice.

125 court fee, had to pay even with not guilty result
For a 200 dollar ticket because I had to pull out of the way of some idiot who was speeding and about to plow into the back of my car.

Once they caught the other driver, I was able to take them to small claims court for the 125 court fee I had to pay, plus all court fees associated with small claims court.

/So I got 250 bucks.
 
2012-06-24 04:29:02 PM  

Nemo's Brother: St_Francis_P: Last year, the court ruled that the fees were justified even if a motorist was found innocent of the ticketed offense.

That's the best part.

Good old liberals.


This came in under our long string of REPUBLICAN governors, but ya, modern Repubs aren't really conservative, are they?
 
2012-06-24 04:30:16 PM  

TheZorker: GAT_00: This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

Just asking, but isn't it called Taxachusetes for a reason?

Doesn't it have one of the Highest tax systems in the nation?


Nope, nope, and you spelled the state wrong.

Twenty seconds on Google would stop you from looking quite so ignorant.
 
2012-06-24 05:30:16 PM  
This is as unconstitutional as a poll tax.
 
2012-06-24 05:37:51 PM  
AMonkey'sUncle : A friend here in NYC got his traffic ticket thrown out because he proved to the judge he fixed the problem in the time allotted by him. He still had to pay and $80 service fee.

That's a fix it ticket, he was in violation of whatever they cited him for, he fixed it, he pays for the paperwork.

That's a bit different than say, getting a ticket for speeding, and then proving that you actually weren't speeding (IE, the original citation was BS) you shouldn't have to pay anything.
 
2012-06-24 05:51:21 PM  
Should do like most cities in NJ do:

You have to appear in court, even to plead guilty. And yes, there is a court fee (think it's pretty routine $25 from what I hear).
 
2012-06-24 06:05:56 PM  
I always love how the court's time is valuable, but your time is worthless. Of course, I suppose that nobody would ever be found "not-guilty" if the court had to pay for your time with that verdict. Ah, the best fairness that you can buy. Our legal system is so wonderful.
 
2012-06-24 06:15:14 PM  

DIGITALgimpus: Should do like most cities in NJ do:

You have to appear in court, even to plead guilty. And yes, there is a court fee (think it's pretty routine $25 from what I hear).


Why should you be on the hook for even one cent if you aren't guilty? That essentially means that you are guilty unless you pay the court for the privilege of proving your innocence. That's even worse than guilty until proven innocent.
 
2012-06-24 06:28:25 PM  
California does something similar, and equally repugnant.

Say the fine is $200.00. Well it's automatically reduced to $100.00 if you just pay it. But if you want to contest it, you have to post a $200.00 bond to cover the fine. If you win the contest, you get your $200.00 back, in 6-9 months. If you lose the contest, you lose the $200.00 bond, plus court fees of another $200.00.

So it's $100.00 if you just pay, or $400.00 if you contest and lose.
 
2012-06-24 06:37:53 PM  

GDubDub: California does something similar, and equally repugnant.

Say the fine is $200.00. Well it's automatically reduced to $100.00 if you just pay it. But if you want to contest it, you have to post a $200.00 bond to cover the fine. If you win the contest, you get your $200.00 back, in 6-9 months. If you lose the contest, you lose the $200.00 bond, plus court fees of another $200.00.

So it's $100.00 if you just pay, or $400.00 if you contest and lose.


Well, if there's some completely head-up-ass way to make money they'll do it here. Then they'll come up with some equally head-up-ass way to spend it. I love this place, but FFS it drives me nuts sometimes.
 
2012-06-24 06:37:53 PM  
The first thing you learn at extortion justice school is to make paying up the easiest way out for the victim citizen.
 
2012-06-24 06:50:27 PM  

Hermione_Granger: GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM

This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

yep.


Speak for yourself sparky, that's not the way it works in my state. If the cop doesn't show after having been subpoenaed, you're free to go, no fees no fines no court costs.
 
2012-06-24 07:40:41 PM  

greyw1980: Hermione_Granger: GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM

This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

yep.

No and it is completely unconstitutional.

What do they do if you refuse to enter a plea? The right to remain silent was in response to church courts, where if you pled not guilty to be a catholic you were renouncing your (catholic) God and you surely did not want to plead guilty to a thought crime (believing the Catholic church was correct) and be burned or tortured.


While I completely, wholeheartedly understand why people told the truth here...why the hell didn't anyone just, y'know, lie?

/Totally off-topic
//I have a feeling any Divine is perfectly fine with you lying to save your life.
 
2012-06-24 07:53:35 PM  

GoldSpider: RembrandtQEinstein: This will prevent the corruption that is inevitable if law enforcement is preformed for profit.

Yeah and who in law enforcement is going to get behind this?


Law enforcement will hate it, but the one group of people who get to push around law enforcement is the legislature. So it will require the citizens who recognize what is happening to both gain control over the legislature AND not become so corrupted in the process that they start to support the current system out of self interest.

So far the only place there is a bit of hope this might happen is New Hampsire
 
2012-06-24 08:04:52 PM  
I have to ask why this kind of thing hasn't been shot down by the supreme court a long time ago. It is not okay to penalize someone for contesting charges against them, even if they're civil, be they misdemeanor or felony. This creates a situation where there's a shotgun approach to citing someone. You were going 60 in a 55. My radar gun only said you were going 55, but there's a percentage of error there and we'll at least break even on administrative costs if you're found not guilty. Your wife died in a car accident, obviously you murdered her and our evidence amounts to 'we think you did it but aren't sure' but come on down to the jail and post $100,000 bail or stay in jail for a month lose your job lose your kids let your pets die etc.
 
2012-06-24 10:02:35 PM  
What I've learned from this thread is that Honest Bender is a farking idiot.
 
2012-06-24 10:07:42 PM  

JuggleGeek: What I've learned from this thread is that Honest Bender is a farking idiot.


www.horror-movies.ca
Your mother!
 
2012-06-24 10:23:49 PM  
A courthouse is the only place I never flush a toilet.
 
2012-06-24 10:58:06 PM  

Xanlexian: A courthouse is the only place I never flush a toilet.


The next person to use that toilet is probably someone just like you. Think about it.
 
2012-06-24 11:23:26 PM  
I'm amazed that nobody has talked about the reason for this yet.

The problem is that traffic tickets are undercosted. They don't make money for the State. Otherwise, it would be more profitable for the state to hire more judges and take more ticket cases. The real answer here is to just increase ticket costs.
 
2012-06-25 12:50:05 AM  

starsrift: I'm amazed that nobody has talked about the reason for this yet.

The problem is that traffic tickets are undercosted. They don't make money for the State. Otherwise, it would be more profitable for the state to hire more judges and take more ticket cases. The real answer here is to just increase ticket costs.


Undercosted?! WTF?! Traffic tickets are pure profit. It's absurd how much has been made off of traffic tickets. There was one town that pretty much made its entire budget off of traffic tickets.
 
2012-06-25 01:51:19 AM  
There was a thread recently about red light camera's someplace, and the tickets were $480.

So I'm not buying the 'undercosted" argument.
 
2012-06-25 04:01:55 AM  
Then again, I point to the second point of my argument. Why not hire more judges, clerks, etc, to deal with the additional cases?

On a cost/benefits analysis, they must cost the state more than they bring in - if they are contested. Otherwise, the state is purely incompetent by not accommodating additional workload.
 
2012-06-25 10:52:16 PM  

PsiChick: greyw1980: Hermione_Granger: GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2012-06-24 09:30:04 AM

This is what happens when people start saying all taxes are bad - you get ridiculous fees everywhere. The anti-tax tards don't biatch about those, especially when attached to the court system. Everything has to be paid for somehow.

So, I'm curious. Is paying for court costs on a ticket, even if the officer doesn't show up and the charge is dismissed, normal everywhere?

yep.

No and it is completely unconstitutional.

What do they do if you refuse to enter a plea? The right to remain silent was in response to church courts, where if you pled not guilty to be a catholic you were renouncing your (catholic) God and you surely did not want to plead guilty to a thought crime (believing the Catholic church was correct) and be burned or tortured.

While I completely, wholeheartedly understand why people told the truth here...why the hell didn't anyone just, y'know, lie?

/Totally off-topic
//I have a feeling any Divine is perfectly fine with you lying to save your life.


If you ever come back to this old thread, denying your catholicism was a sin (bearing false witness). It sounds crazy, but the church was just as strict about your loyalty as the (protestant) state was. So the post-reformation church came up with the idea of equivocation, a semantics trick by which you would use double-speak or incomplete or garbled sentences to sound like one thing but secretly mean another; for example:

Q: "Are you a catholic?"
A: "Why no [I have never buggered a boy], not at all!"

So you see, it sounded like the answer they wanted, but you pretended to misunderstand, thus "unintentionally" answering a different question. Religion is all about plausible deniability.


/love these dead threads...
 
2012-06-25 11:20:17 PM  

macadamnut: PsiChick: greyw1980: Hermione_Granger: GAT_00 [TotalFark]


If you ever come back to this old thread, denying your catholicism was a sin (bearing false witness). It sounds crazy, but the church was just as strict about your loyalty as the (protestant) state was. So the post-reformation church came up with the idea of equivocation, a semantics trick by which you would use double-speak or incomplete or garbled sentences to sound like one thing but secretly mean another; for example:

Q: "Are you a catholic?"
A: "Why no [I have never buggered a boy], not at all!"

So you see, it sounded like the answer they wanted, but you pretended to misunderstand, thus "unintentionally" answering a different question. Religion is all about plausible deniability.


/love these dead threads...


...Wow. That's spectacularly retarded. Yeah, your people could all save their butts and live if they lie, or you can force them to tell the truth and be horribly murdered. Let's go with option B!

*facepalm*
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report