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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
