Well, This Is Distressing....

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

If you impose fines before trial, you are basically imposing sentence without trial. That's unconstitutional, isn't it? I seem to recall a bit about no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Hence the difference between crimes and infractions.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by icenine

Huge fines for traffic violations are becoming an issue for reform here.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...520-story.html

your average ticket is $500. She wants to let people challenge the ticket in court before having to pay the fines. Plus when they get so high people cannot pay the fines and the state loses money.

I got a speeding ticket last May in Alpine County, CA which is just south of Lake Tahoe; total population 1,160. I went to traffic court for arraignment and there were nine other cases ahead of me, mine being the last. Everyone of them except two, one who wanted to fight the case and myself could not pay the fine. The judge had to give them terms after reducing all of our fines significantly. My discounted fine was $280 or so. He happened to be a decent guy.

Amazing part of this incident is that we all got our tickets in the very same spot! Aren't speed traps illegal?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Why do police exist?

Is it possible they have to accept limitations on their power, to prevent instances in which police operations negate their actual purpose?

This is an excellent parameter for a new thread.

[nailer]

^^^
First parameter to set would be to define the actual purpose of the police.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Not being able to distinguish between laws and departmental training requirements might qualify as proof of idiocy.

Incompetence often disguises itself as idiocy.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by nailer

^^^
First parameter to set would be to define the actual purpose of the police.

Really? I thought it was "Serve and Protect".

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Really? I thought it was "Serve and Protect".

That was in the previous century. Now it's Law Enforcement with full riot gear.

[donquixote99]

That phrase has always been inadequate. Serve and protect who is one of the obvious issues. Some people seem to get a very different scale of service and protection than others.

[nailer]

The status quo is who the police serve and protect.