Here’s a question sort of related to Rachelle’s post about the police:
Should the police aim to protect the innocent or punish the guilty? Are they best using their resources by chasing motorists who roll through stop signs on a deserted road at night, rather than investigating white collar crime, organized crime or other less lucrative (for their coffers) criminals?
Please, no sitting on the fence here… Ideally it should be some kind of balance, but I just don’t see that happening.
Ummmm, which side of the fence is this on?
This probably belongs in GD and I’m sure the moderators will move it there.
The role of police is neither “to protect the innocent or punish the guilty.” They exist to enforce law.
Come let us go, I’ve a cask of amontillado.
Sorry - To clarify, what I meant by that last phrase was:
Please no sitting on the fence here… I realize that there should be some kind of balance (in an ideal world) but since that isn’t happening which extreme should the police and other law enforcement agencies swing to?
To avoid the Great Debates on this one - What is more important: punishing the guilty or protecting the innocent, especially regarding the resources poured into traffic violations vs. resources poured into other crimes (murder, etc)
If you keep on that way, it is GD. As padeye points out however - neither way of looking at it is very useful. Police have the task of enforcing the laws. They do this by punishing people who violate them, which protects innocent people from further perpetrations.
It is not the function of the police to punish people; it is the function of the police to enforce the law. If you break the law, they can arrest you for it, or ticket you (a ticket is a notice of violation), but they don’t punish – the court system does that once a criminal defendant is convicted. I know most police consider their duty of enforcing the law to be part and parcel of protecting the public – that’s why the motto of many police departments is “to protect and serve.”
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Listen, while I agree that catching a red-light runner isn’t quite like figuring out who killed Roger Ackroyd, there is some value in enforcing traffic laws.
I saw a terrible accident occur right in front of me that was the result of a red-light runner, with one injury so severe that the victim was helicoptered out. I am thus personally convinced of the value of traffic law enforcement.
So ticketing people that run red lights (and stop signs, and those who exceed speed limits) has, I would contend, a deterrent effect. And because these violations are potentially dangerous, deterring them serves a useful social purpose.
Now, I have met people who believe that there situation is different. They aver a difference between running a red light in the middle of the night, when they can clearly see both ways, and no cars coming, and suggest they should be given some special consideration after doing so.
I don’t agree.
The traffic laws serve a purpose. And the use of police time to enforce those laws is socially beneficial.
Finally, I would point out that not all cops have the ability or inclination to solve murder mysteries. For some cops, their skill set is limited to traffic enforcement, which vitiates the argument that should all be out “solving murders somewhere.”
Here goes… If I get a ticket issued by a police officer, that’s punishment. If a “John” gets letters sent home by the police, that’s punishment. If police resources are used to dissociate information about a known sex offender moving into a neighbourhood, that is punishment. Any moving violation has an associated fine or penalty that, while not administered entirely through the police, is still a form of punishment. All these are “after the fact” responses to a crime or violation. They do not prevent the original crime from happening, merely penalize once it has occured (that should be the role of the court).
To protect the public, the police could spend more effort trying to prevent a crime from happening (I understand that the afore mentioned “punishments” may be viewed as a deterent from further violations)through more police resources dedicated to educational campaigns, setting up totally obvious radar traps with big signs, etc. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that.
Oh, crap…I’ll see you all in the GD’s
Kylen
Police do *not punish anyone as part of law enforcement.
Sorry Kylan, you are wrong. A police officer issuing a ticket is not “punishing” you. He is, in effect, writing a note to the Judge stating, “I saw this person break the law”. He is no more punishing you than some one who phones in a violation and appears as a witness at trial.
Traffic violations result in more deaths annually than all other crimes combined. A police officer who does nothing but traffic enforcement could very well be preventing a murder.
Anyone who has ever gone to court over a traffic ticket pretty well knows this is crap. A ticket is a punishment - the writing of the ticket forces you into a situation where you will have to spend time, money and effort to avoid further punishments (such as being arrested), regardless of how you resolve the situation.
Setting up radar traps isn’t going to do anything but change the behavior of those who are within sight of the radar trap. Big deal - what a useless waste of money!
Educational campaigns? Like “Just say NO to Speeding?” Also practically useless - the majority of drivers already know the law, it’s just that, in their estimation, the benefit of speeding or rolling through the stop sign outweighs the benefit of following the law.
What it comes down to is that lots and lots of traffic ticketing IS the best way to “prevent a [traffic] crime from happening.” Like a literal slap on a child’s wrist, the legal and enforcement process represented by “tickets” is negative reinforcement designed to make you think twice next time aboiut breaking the traffic laws whether you can see a posted radar “trap” or not. That system is far more effective than just have millions of cops hanging out by the side of roads, watching everyone.
As for a ticket being “punishment” - not in my experience. Mine always said “Notice To Appear” or something similar. I broke the law, but rather than arrest me the cop allowed me to continue on my way with a notice that I now had to go to court to face charges. That slip of paper is that notice, plus a record of the particulars, and nothing more.
Later, I would receive a mailing from the court detailing the charge and offering me a choice: fight the charges in the court, or post bail and forfeit it (thereby also admitting guilt) so that I could avoid the time and trouble of going to court. If I had fought the charges but been convicted anyway, I believe the fine would have been the same amount as the proposed bail.
Maybe your state is different, but here in California most people just post and forfeit bail - BUT NOTICE: NOWHERE IN THIS PROCEDURE ARE THE POLICE “PUNISHING” ME. That’s up to the courts.
If you violate the law, you deserve to be punished. I can never understand the whiners over traffic tickets.
Police exist to ‘keep the peace.’ This entails, among other things, apprehending those who violate the law. Frankly, since most of us are unlikely to be victims of crimes other than traffic violations that result in accidents, I am more than happy to have the police apprehending traffic violators. I also want them walking the streets and being seen, making those who might commit a crime think twice about it.
As for punishment, please, let’s think this out. You were observed violating the law. You failed in your attempt to convince the officer who stopped you that you were in fact not violating the law, or otherwise should escape being required to either pay a fine or show in court. Now, you have a choice: pay a fine and skip the appearance, or go and try to explain why the nice officer should be ignored when he says, “the defendant was observed doing 51 in a 35 zone…”
Yes, traffic enforcement saves lives - I never denied that. But that was not the point of my OP. I have jay-walked in front of police a number of times, without being ticketed. Surely writing me a ticket for this dangerous and all-too-frequent occurence would prevent myself and others from doing it in the future. Yet I have never been ticketed. Why?
Because in this instance the other duties the police had were considered paramount to busting me “Cops” style. Wouldn’t setting up drunk-driving road blocks frequently and in high-traffic as well as low traffic areas act as more of a deterent than infrequent stops in almost random areas? Wouldn’t concentrating on the cause rather than the symptoms be better for those the police are supposed to be serving? Set up speed traps all over, all the time. Make ticketing a likelyhood rather than a possibility. Reduce the inclination to speed, or murder or whatever you want to call it.
In a nutshell (and stepping away from traffic violations) - wouldn’t it be better if the cops tried much harder to stop crimes of any magnitutde (I really don’t care how) before they started rather than ticket or fine or arrest people after the crimes already have occured?
The writing of the ticket is what the constitution calls due process. The police have charged you with a violation at that point. The assesment of a fine if you choose to plead guilty by paying the ticket or are found guilty is part of the judicial system, not the police.
Don’t they teach civics in school anymore?
Come let us go, I’ve a cask of amontillado.
Pardon my brusque responses. I may have been a little out of line. No insult intended to anyone.
DSYoungESQ - I realize your Nova won’t go fast enough for you to ever get a speeding ticket, but still, you certainly seem to have a thing against traffic offenders. Wait until you get a hefty traffic ticket one day - you’ll SWEAR you stopped completely - and your attitude as to what’s reasonable and what’s fair will change.
I assume you are an lawyer from your name, so I’ll ask: Do you feel all defendents (traffic court or otherwise) are unworthy of a defense if in truth they actually did commit the crime? What about the 6th Amendment?
But back to traffic laws -
Personally, I feel that the enforcement of traffic laws is a good thing when done in the name of public safety (i.e. stopping a fool doing 55 in a densely populated neighborhood), but when the laws are selectively enforced (i.e. pulling one speeder out of a pack and ignoring the others) or when the laws are manipulated to the point where they have nothing to do with public safety (i.e. artificially low limits as in my previous threads), then I disagree with your conclusion about breaking the law and deserving to be punished.
In general, I will agree with other posters that enforcement of the laws looks to punish offenders, act a deterrent to future offenders, and therefore does protect society in the end.
I will disagree about traffic court. In my few dealings with the system (and from personal accounts from friends and family), I am under the impression that traffic court is a big business designed to raise money for the city. Unless one gets to the point of possibly losing his driving privileges, the court is less of a deterrent system and more of a tax collection agency. It’s an unofficial “tax” on driving at high speeds. And just like cigarette taxes, the public agrees with the tax because it is a tax something that is inherently dangerous.
Someone mentioned that a citation is just a “notice” to appear before the judge and that the cop isn’t handing out punishment or making a judgment. In theory that’s correct, but unless one makes the effort to contest the charges and develop a sound defense, the offender is AUTOMATICALLY considered guilty until proven innocent. Without evidence, the charges always stand and the offender always loses. Of course, the state needs no evidence, just the “nice officer”, so the state will almost always win. In reality, the cop is usually making a judgment, because he doesn’t have to stop a speeder every time he sees one; but when he does stop you, you’re instantly punished due to the hoops, traps, and inconveniences that are thrown at you once you enter the system.
Don’t you walk around with your eyes open?
I’m not debating legal theory - the reality is that it is up to the police officer whether or not you incur trouble and expense for your actions, thus it is he that punishes you. Have you ever been let off with a warning? How could you be let off with a warning if it were not up to him to decide whether or not you should be punished?
Cooper, not everything that forces you to incur trouble and expense constitutes punishment, unless you’re defining punishment in a way it is not generally defined. You have to go downtown to renew your license, don’t you? Is the DMV “punishing” you? It seems like if you were to talk about going to the dentist for a “punishing” filling, you’d be speaking literally.
Of course, the police officer is deciding whether you will receive a ticket or not; that doesn’t translate into him administering the punishment. The punishment is authorized by statute through the actions of the legislature when a particular action is made a criminal or civil infraction, so if anyone is “punishing” you, it’s them or the judge that sentences you. The fact that the cop has the discretion to decide if you receive the punishment or not, does not mean that the cop is punishing you. In the absence of some legal authority, he couldn’t ticket you at all, no matter how egregious he might personally consider your actions.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
“Without evidence?” The officer’s testimony doesn’t count as “evidence?” In fact, you start out every court case in excatly the same way as you start out being a defendant in a murder case: cloaked with the presumption of innocence.
Just like the murder case, you cannot arbitrarily be thrown into the court system for a traffic violation. Something must happen to give at least probable cause that you violated the law. If a cop sees you roll through the stop sign, that is probable cause to believe you violated the law. He charges you by citation. At that point, I’m perfectly willing to concede that some minor level of punishment occurs - you have to either go to court (and miss work, etc.) or plead guilty by mail and pay the fine.
If you don’t go, there is still evidence used to convict you: the traffic summons, which contains the officer’s sworn testimony that the contents thereof are true and correct. Spend a day in traffic court sometime… you’ll hear a litany of:
Judge: “Adams? Adams?” (no response)
Cop (having previously been sworn): “Your Honor, summons 13-1234 is true and correct.”
Judge: “Find guilty, impose a $50 fine. Baker? Baker?” (no response)
Cop: “Your Honor, summons 13-1235 is true and correct.”
And so forth, until someone appears to answer for their case. If you do appear, it’s not an automatic guilty verdict… but the job of the judge in a bench trial is to be a fact-finder – to judge the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their credibility. Of course, the cop gains a certain advantage, because he generally won’t have a strong motive to lie, whereas the accused as a fairly strong motive to shade the truth.
I have, however, seen plenty of cases kicked or the charges reduced, especially when the defendant could offer something concrete. In a reckless driving case I had, the cop testified that the car’s wheels spun so that smoke was coming from the back tires.
When confronted with the fact that the car was a front-wheel drive… he said quickly, “Oh, then it was the front wheels.”
Case was dismissed.
The point is - it’s not automatic.
No, as to the ‘selective enforcement’ argument… the cops lack the resources to pull over every single speeder every single time. So, yes, a certain selective enforcement goes on. But you could just as well argue that it’s ‘selective enforcement’ because they choose to set up their radar trap on Highland Street, and not Broad Street.
As long as the enforcement is not based on impermissible criteria (race, for instance) then I can’t see the problem.