Today is the sixth in the series of 10 (What is it with me and serieses of 10?) on the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:
Amendment 6 -
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
American Citizens (and legal naturalized immigrants) have a great right: They are able to get a 'speedy' and 'public' trial by a jury. They are also able to be confronted by the Witnesses who are testifying against them or bringing the charges against them. They are also allowed to have a legal Defence process.
Prior to this, many were tried in shady trials, in which there were no juries present, and for which the accused had no legal right to defend themselves. As you could imagine, corruption ran rampant.
With this Amendment, the individual was protected from a corrupt and shady judge or government, so as to not be silenced by criminal trial for things they haven't done. This Amendment guarentees that an individual can not only defend themselves against any charges brought against them (Which is great in and of itself, coupled with the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty"), but they are allowed to confront their accusers.
Misuse: Many like to hide their guilt under this Amendment. Groups, such as the ACLU and many others, oppose things like camera radar systems, which take pictures of you speeding through a red light, or take pictures of you speeding. Because you cant 'put the camera on the stand' some argue that such ways of catching the guilty breaking the law are 'unconstitutional.'
Their lack of understanding is either very great, or wilfull. (or both)
People also, with this Amendment, suggest that people like Jose Padilla is being held illegally, as they had not recived a trial after years of being in prison. What they forget is that, even though he is a US Citizen, (and a horrid gang member who has had a history of jail time for many bad things), he was declared to be an illegal enemy combatant. He was put in prison in 2002, as he had been caught not just trying to take part in overseas 'jihad' terrorist activities, but also agreeing to help in the funding process of such activities. (As a Side Note, in August 2007, he was found guilty of EVERY charge. Since then, not much is said about Jose Padilla by the left, which previously held him up as an innocent.)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"Groups, such as the ACLU and many others, oppose things like camera radar systems, which take pictures of you speeding through a red light, or take pictures of you speeding. Because you cant 'put the camera on the stand' some argue that such ways of catching the guilty breaking the law are 'unconstitutional.'"
I agree with these groups about Camera Enforcement. Not because I think I should be able to face my accuser as a human, but because cities use camera enforcement as a source of generating revenue and as tax on minor traffic mistakes (see The Newspaper for stories on Camera System Abuse; http://www.thenewspaper.com/). Often, the cities who use these systems take the position that the systems are infallible and if you were caught by them, you are guilty. This despite the fact that camera systems have been known to issue tickets for legal activity (turning right on red), that city officials have tweaked traffic light timings to increase the chance of getting caught by a camera, and that speed cameras have been known to tag the wrong car, or are set with unrealistic tolerances (tickets issued for going less than 5 mph over). This all despite human oversight of the system (because the human overseers trust the equipment too much).
If things like this only happened to one person every once in a while, that would be one thing, but when hundreds are nabbed before the problem is noticed, and the order of a judge is required to clear the tickets because the city is reluctant to lose the revenue, you have persons getting their rights tromped on and the ACLU and other groups are right to demand the system stop. Citing 6th amendment protection is merely the hammer to use to crack the corruption.
Issues like that are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The fact remains that it is illegal to speed or run a red light. That they are finally able to catch people doing it doesn't make the speeder or person running a red light suddenly the victim.
it is illegal, whether one is caught or not.
Well, you, know, that's why a lot of people have radar detectors, etc., because they want to willfully break the law and get away with it. Let's look at the alternative: a patrol car is stationed at every bad intersection in the city, and they get ALL of the offenders.
And another thing, remember what happens at certain places when law enforcement evaporates: looting, rape, and murder. Why do people all of a sudden act like wild animals let out of their cages? Just because there's not a cop on the corner? Get real!!
And another 'nother thing: the speed limit signs tell us just that: how fast you can legally go, not how fast is the safest, or the best. But we all want to push the speed to the limit and beyond. I actually enjoy going the limit or a little less when I'm not in a hurry. Less stress, you know? I mean, some rules are there because of experience and concerns for public safety, and not just for municipal revenues.
I don't exceed the speed limit except where legally allowed (In some states, they have a flow of traffic law that states if you are going more than X miles faster or slower than the flow of traffic, you are creating a hazard and are in violation)
sometimes that flow is above the speed limit.
Otherwise, I don't speed. And, like you say, it is relaxing... not to mention caliming on the mind to not have to be on the lookout for cops. heh.
If it was a case of an occasional person getting hit with a mistake, I'd agree, but more often than not, the problem is one of equipment failures which leave hundreds of innocent people with undeserved tickets who now must take time out of their days to contest the tickets, and if the city refuses to strike the citations, they need to find a judge to force the issue.
I also take issue with cities reducing the time a light is yellow in order to generate more tickets for the purposes of revenue. Reducing the time a light is yellow not only causes people to unintentionally blow the light, but it also leads to more accidents in many cases as folks slam on their breaks to avoid blowing the light that turned red too soon.
It is one thing to use a camera to nail idiots who are all too eager to blow through an intersection and endanger lives, it is something else entirely to change the conditions so it is easier to cite folks who are not driving recklessly. If you install a camera in the name of safety and then adjust things to make money (usually because the camera did it's job and very few people are intentionally blowing the light anymore), you are cheating your population and deserve to get slapped with whatever lawsuit they can dream up. If using the sixth amendment is what it takes to bring corrupt officials in line, I'm all for it.
And, again, that is a case by case issue. I don't mean dealing with it driver by driver, but city by city.
drivers can sue a city if things are done in a shady way . .. if the timing of yellow lights is shortened, etc.
but I still suggest that, for the vast majority of cities and towns, this would only lead to drivers paying more attention to the speed limit and traffic lights.
I understand your point of view, and would even share it for the cases of the cities that ARE being shady (which does indeed happen), but I think that keeping on the lookout for actual corruption (rather than an assumption that it is corrupt by nature of existance), would weed out the problems.
I agree that sometimes those who enforce the law need to be watched, but that doesn't mean that they ought not to be allowed to enforce the law in an effective way.
Then I am letting this go.
The reason cities mess with light timings, or speed tolerances, or setting a speed limit so low that it is far below the safe speed for the road design, is that operating a camera costs money, and if a given camera is not generating enough money from tickets, then the city has to operate it at a loss.
Now if cameras were only in place to promote safety and nail blatant violators, then a city should be willing to operate at a loss, or be willing to spend the money to move cameras around when revenue drops off (indicating that citizens are now obeying the traffic rules at that location).
Yet things like this happen all too often (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2134.asp). If a city suddenly finds that it can not make money off of cameras, or that any money made is not going into city coffers, strangely red light cameras are not so important.
Enforcement of laws can NEVER be about making money for the city. Fines are a way to remind citizens to obey the law and a city should be just happy as pigs in shit if the take from fines started diminishing. If they are getting upset that they are not making enough money from fines, then fines merely become a tax that no one voted for and that does not apply equally to everyone. It also causes police to focus more on generating revenue and less on public safety and criminal investigations.
And please don't get me wrong here, I LOVE the idea of traffic cameras as a way to enforce speed limits and compliance with safe laws since it frees up police to deal with more problematic crime, but to diddle with traffic indicators in order to make money is just wrong and should be opposed in whatever fashion is available.