Wednesday, April 12, 2006


Yeah, about that

I often question the criminality of traffic offenses...

If an officer sees a number of people committing the "crime" of speeding, they tend to pull over just one or simply the first one to hit their breaks (since they have now confessed).

Yes, it is true that we never catch all the perpetrators of any crime and the inability to universally enforce does not take away from the criminality.

However on the road, an officer is a witness to this illegal activity and disregards the "crime" of a few to catch one. Why is this? Additionally, the crime of speeding is not considered criminal if it is not caught, while all other normal criminal activities still are.

Why are traffic violations criminal at all? Do they serve their purpose? Have they increased safety, lowered accidents, or reduced travel times -- or do they simply serve as a source of revenues for local and state law enforcement?

Are trafic violations statute based or precedent based?
Statute = an excuse to collect a tax. Precedent = protection of individuals' rights.
Whom is the crime being committed against? If it is the state - it is not legitimate. If it is an individual, then restitution must be paid to that individual.
The state would prefer that any penalties be paid to it rather than any victims. In this it plays god. "If you sin against your brother you sin against god."
P_ _ _ N.
You fill in the blanks.
Dude, you gotta give me the rest of those letters.
Post a Comment

<< Home
CrispAds Blog Ads

Does someone you know deserve flowers?
Web Site Hit Counter
Dell Canada

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?