To the previous I would add, there are many examples of the people's agents gaming the system. Consider the example of traffic infractions.
Only a few decades ago, driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit on a long, lonely desert highway, like the ones around me, was a crime. Attorneys and other public officials convinced citizens t…
To the previous I would add, there are many examples of the people's agents gaming the system. Consider the example of traffic infractions.
Only a few decades ago, driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit on a long, lonely desert highway, like the ones around me, was a crime. Attorneys and other public officials convinced citizens they cared so much about them they would decriminalize such things so that they would no longer have a criminal traffic fine on their record.
What they NEVER mentioned was, no longer would you be judged by a jury of your peers, who would judge the facts. Instead, you'd be judged by a judge, who judged both the law and facts.
It was not mentioned that the judge saw his/her retirement grow with each fine.
It was not mentioned you would no longer be presumed innocent, and the government required to prove you guilty. Instead, you would have to do what, more often than not, was impossible - prove yourself innocent. Elsewhere in law this burden is frowned on for the obvious reason it is impossible in many instances.
Now, with infractions, there remains a presumption, which is, what the agent writing the ticket said is true. Back to that "prove your innocence" thing.
The coffers of cities and counties started filling up much quicker, with the people's new freedom from crime in their orderly society.
To the previous I would add, there are many examples of the people's agents gaming the system. Consider the example of traffic infractions.
Only a few decades ago, driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit on a long, lonely desert highway, like the ones around me, was a crime. Attorneys and other public officials convinced citizens they cared so much about them they would decriminalize such things so that they would no longer have a criminal traffic fine on their record.
What they NEVER mentioned was, no longer would you be judged by a jury of your peers, who would judge the facts. Instead, you'd be judged by a judge, who judged both the law and facts.
It was not mentioned that the judge saw his/her retirement grow with each fine.
It was not mentioned you would no longer be presumed innocent, and the government required to prove you guilty. Instead, you would have to do what, more often than not, was impossible - prove yourself innocent. Elsewhere in law this burden is frowned on for the obvious reason it is impossible in many instances.
Now, with infractions, there remains a presumption, which is, what the agent writing the ticket said is true. Back to that "prove your innocence" thing.
The coffers of cities and counties started filling up much quicker, with the people's new freedom from crime in their orderly society.