🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:10:56 GMT, joelga@pebble.org (Joel Garry)
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:11:08 GMT, Scott Weiser <weiser@dimensional.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 22:25:18 GMT, joelga@pebble.org (Joel Garry)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you know the difference between criminal common law and traffic infractions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but from your postings, I don't believe you.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>>Because you said:
>>>
>>>------------------------  Begin Inclusion  -------------------------
>>>
>>>No, just for speeding and perhaps some other deliberate violations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why should the imcompetent not be held to the same standards?
>>>
>>>Because they are....incompetent....
>>>
>>>>  You
>>>>probably agree with the judge that let the elderly person walk after
>>>>running over pedestrians on the sidewalk.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "walk?"   Nobody who kills another for whatever
>>>reason just "walks," they usually pay a heavy, heavy
>>>price...particularly those who had no intent to kill.
>>>
>>>It depends on the specific circumstances, but I'd certainly revoke
>>>their license.
>>>
>>>>  After all, you can't blame
>>>>someone that inadvertently kills, but if they deliberately park in a
>>>>fire lane they should go straight to jail.
>>>
>>>Correct in part.  Whether someone who "inadvertently kills" is
>>>culpable depends on the specific circumstances and their degree of
>>>negligence, but someone who breaks the law *deliberately* and with
>>>malice aforethought, deserves harsh punishment as a reminder that
>>>society will not tolerate scofflaws.
>>>
>>>Deliberation and intent have always been factors in the punishment for
>>>any crime.
>>>
>>>--------------------------  End Inclusion  --------------------------
>>>
>>>That first line there.  It implies that you don't know that speeding is
>>>a traffic infraction that requires no intent, no malice aforthought.
>>
>>>Now perhaps you didn't mean to imply that deliberate goes with speeding,
>>>but you've made it quite clear you are talking about "deliberate speeders,"
>>>so any ambiguity in that first line is gone.  In other words, you are 
>>>taking something that is not defined in the criminal code or criminal
>>>common law, calling it a crime, and daring me to point that out.  So, no,
>>>you don't appear to know the difference between criminal common law and
>>>traffic infractions.
>>
>>Well if you'll notice, I was stating my opinion on what I think the
>>law *should* be, not what it is.
>
>What it should be needs to take into account what is, or you'll never get
>there.  If you are throwing out centuries of careful deliberation, it
>needs a pretty fine microscopic examination.

Well, actually, up until quite recently, traffic offenses, including
speeding, were *criminal* offenses.   One of the reasons for
decriminalizing traffic statutes was to unclog the criminal court
system, which was at a standstill because *any* criminal defendant has
a right to a trial and many other civil rights which caused inordinate
delay in dealing with traffic offenders.   In the 70's, the various
state governments recognized that traffic misbehavior was for the most
part not criminal in character, and they wanted to eliminate some of
the more egregious abuses by small-town magistrates, who were
arresting and jailing minor offenders and assessing huge fines.   The
Colorado legislature, like most others, made most offenses into
"infractions", and classified them as civil offenses, which changed
both the rights which accrued to the accused as well as the burden of
proof, which was "beyond a reasonable doubt" and is now "by a
preponderance of the evidence."   They also set up a "referee" system
with an expedited process to keep appeals to a minimum and dispose of
cases more quickly.

As a part of this decriminalization, the state legislature took away
the authority of local police to arrest and jail for minor offenses.
Now, they can only issue you a summons, and cannot arrest you for a
simple traffic infraction.

>
>And you are mixing what should be and what is in the above quoted passage.

And you made the mistake of assuming that while no specific intent is
required for a speeding conviction, (it's a strict liability offense),
a demonstrated specific intent can be an aggrevating factor when it
comes to meeting out punishment.  As I said, deliberation and intent
have always been significant factors in the process of administering
justice....even in civil traffic infractions.

If you disbelieve me, then next time you get a speeding ticket, tell
the referee that you did it deliberately, knowingly and willfully, and
that you don't recognize the government's authority to control your
speed, and see what happens.   You'll be maxed out, without question.


Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser

By the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail or advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.