Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicles, Supreme Judicial Court, small claims court, fees, Insurance Board of Appeals, trial courts  
•       •       •

8274 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2012 at 10:03 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-24 10:12:12 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:11:03 AM  
5 votes:

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 08:53:59 AM  
5 votes:

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 11:05:42 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:25:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:46:59 AM  
2 votes:
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 06:37:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:11:25 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:07:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:46:12 AM  
1 vote:
What's next, plead guilty to murder or incur all court costs?
2012-06-24 10:29:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:23:52 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:22:32 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:11:31 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:10:17 AM  
1 vote:
well at least the rich can afford justice.
..
2012-06-24 09:07:20 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:06:40 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:25:08 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report