Thursday, August 25, 2005
Extorsion
How much would an innocent person be willing to pay for a crime they didn't commit? In my case it was $100, 2 points on my license, and a class C misdermeanor on my record. Today I pled "no contest" when given a reduced fine. The charge was running a red light. Only the light was yellow, the officer was just pulling over the last person to go through the light. Too lazy to go catch speeders I guess. That cycle it was me. But it wasn't red.
My other opions were:
a) suspended sentance. Basically I pay the full fine (over $200) and if I am a good boy for 6 months it doesn't go on my record.
b) plead no contest without having gone in to the courthouse, pay the full fine, and have the 2 points and the record.
c) go before a judge, do a he said she said against the officer, and probably lose, and certainly waste more of my time
d) go before a jury, do a he said she said against the officer, and probably lose, and waste a whole lot more time
e) some variation of c or d, but with a lawyer
Now there are some interesting parts to this.
1. The legal system is stacked against those who are accused of minor offenses. When the cost of a lawyer is more than the cost of the fine, there is essentially no way to come out without having wasted time and money regardless of innocence or guilt. It would be great if when the state (state meaning the government, not Texas) took you to trial, that if they lost they would have to pay your legal fees. People would defend themselves based on their ability to prove their innocence or guilt, instead of the cost of a lawyer vs the cost of pleading no contest. A side effect would be officers would make more accurate citations, not wanting to sit in court losing all day.
2. Man am I glad I speak English. Those who didn't speak English didn't get to hear what the judge said. They also got maybe half of what the prostecutor said via the interpreter due to being rushed. And they were basically signing papers based on what their inerpreter said they were about, without having read them.
3. The dockets were posted on the wall, so you could see what everybody during the day was accused of. There were a suprising number of glass container fines. One guy got fined twice for having a beer, once for the alcohol, once for the glass it was in. $362 for a beer, that has got to hurt.
4. A lot of these fines are rediculous. Speeding on a freeway, posession of "drug paraphanalia", posession of a glass container, etc. It seems like it would be easier and more efficient to just raise taxes and do away with some of these silly fines. Plus, when we make stupid laws it undermines the credibility of all the good laws.
My other opions were:
a) suspended sentance. Basically I pay the full fine (over $200) and if I am a good boy for 6 months it doesn't go on my record.
b) plead no contest without having gone in to the courthouse, pay the full fine, and have the 2 points and the record.
c) go before a judge, do a he said she said against the officer, and probably lose, and certainly waste more of my time
d) go before a jury, do a he said she said against the officer, and probably lose, and waste a whole lot more time
e) some variation of c or d, but with a lawyer
Now there are some interesting parts to this.
1. The legal system is stacked against those who are accused of minor offenses. When the cost of a lawyer is more than the cost of the fine, there is essentially no way to come out without having wasted time and money regardless of innocence or guilt. It would be great if when the state (state meaning the government, not Texas) took you to trial, that if they lost they would have to pay your legal fees. People would defend themselves based on their ability to prove their innocence or guilt, instead of the cost of a lawyer vs the cost of pleading no contest. A side effect would be officers would make more accurate citations, not wanting to sit in court losing all day.
2. Man am I glad I speak English. Those who didn't speak English didn't get to hear what the judge said. They also got maybe half of what the prostecutor said via the interpreter due to being rushed. And they were basically signing papers based on what their inerpreter said they were about, without having read them.
3. The dockets were posted on the wall, so you could see what everybody during the day was accused of. There were a suprising number of glass container fines. One guy got fined twice for having a beer, once for the alcohol, once for the glass it was in. $362 for a beer, that has got to hurt.
4. A lot of these fines are rediculous. Speeding on a freeway, posession of "drug paraphanalia", posession of a glass container, etc. It seems like it would be easier and more efficient to just raise taxes and do away with some of these silly fines. Plus, when we make stupid laws it undermines the credibility of all the good laws.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
farewell Gaza
Evacuation of the Israli settlements in the Gaza strip has started. It is of course ugly. The settlers are being torn from their homes. Some of them by force. It's a lot like if the US decided we weren't going to be in Texas anymore, and we'd have to evacuate Austin. On a smaller scale of course, but with the added thought that God promised them the land.
I do think it is probably a good idea in the long run, but boy it is a tradegy in the present.
Here is by far the best summary of the situation, how it came about, etc.
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0815/p10s01-wome.html
I think I should add the Christian Science Monitor to my links on the right side. They are the best new organization for well written insightful and yet unbiased articles in the world. If you want to see things as they unfold live turn on CNN, if you want to know what is actually going on read the Christian Science Monitor.
But I still think the Christian Scientists are a bunch of wackos.
I do think it is probably a good idea in the long run, but boy it is a tradegy in the present.
Here is by far the best summary of the situation, how it came about, etc.
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0815/p10s01-wome.html
I think I should add the Christian Science Monitor to my links on the right side. They are the best new organization for well written insightful and yet unbiased articles in the world. If you want to see things as they unfold live turn on CNN, if you want to know what is actually going on read the Christian Science Monitor.
But I still think the Christian Scientists are a bunch of wackos.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
privitization
It seems a big win for privitization of medicare, and a genuine win for American's.
WASHINGTON -- Most participants in Medicare's new prescription drug benefit will spend about $5 less per month in premiums than originally anticipated because of competition among private plans bidding to offer the benefit.
The savings will also extend to the government. The subsidies it pays the plans to provide the drug benefit will decrease by about $180 per beneficiary next year. The savings translate into at least $5 billion annually based on Wall Street estimates of enrollment rates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901088.html
WASHINGTON -- Most participants in Medicare's new prescription drug benefit will spend about $5 less per month in premiums than originally anticipated because of competition among private plans bidding to offer the benefit.
The savings will also extend to the government. The subsidies it pays the plans to provide the drug benefit will decrease by about $180 per beneficiary next year. The savings translate into at least $5 billion annually based on Wall Street estimates of enrollment rates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901088.html
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Privacy
This just about sums up my thoughts on privacy.
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/05/montana-supreme-court/
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/05/montana-supreme-court/
