PDA

View Full Version : Are traffic courts unfair?


FreakyLocz14
April 26th, 2010, 08:38 PM
I believe they are. I base my argument on two points, both centered on the denial of the right to a trial by jury.

1) Every traffic case has a conflict of interest that prevents a fair trial.
The fact that you are denied a jury trial and are tried by a judge creates a conflict of interest. For example, if I am recieve a citation my case will be called The People of the State of California v. Me. The judge who is trying me is works for and is paid by a party in my case: The People of the State of California.

2) Denying the right to a jury trial violates the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.
"In Suits (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/Lawsuit) at common law (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/Common_law), where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/United_States_dollar), the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/Question_of_fact) tried by a jury (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/Jury), shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States (http://www.pokecommunity.com/wiki/United_States_federal_courts), than according to the rules of the common law."

So technically if you are being fined less than $20 there is no violation but 9.99 times out of 10 the fine will be over $20.

Esper
April 27th, 2010, 06:30 AM
Adjust for inflation. $20 then meant something very different from what $20 means today.

donavannj
April 27th, 2010, 06:34 AM
Adjust for inflation. $20 then meant something very different from what $20 means today.
Still is the legal standard. A standard that is largely ignored. D;

xJordan360
April 27th, 2010, 06:35 AM
THERE SHALL BE NO ADJUSTING, FOR THE LAW IS SET IN STONE.

FreakyLocz14
April 27th, 2010, 06:50 AM
Still is the legal standard. A standard that is largely ignored. D;

I wonder what would happen if someone made these arguments on appeal.

donavannj
April 27th, 2010, 06:52 AM
I wonder what would happen if someone made these arguments on appeal.

Y'know, I'm not really sure. Might be held in contempt of the court, depending on the judge. Dx

Shadow
April 27th, 2010, 07:16 AM
So, in other words, you want the trials to take even longer due to needing a jury? I'm sure California already has quite the waiting period.

And you want your fines from the case and your taxes to be even higher? They do have to pay the jury.

Also: It does not violate the constitution to not have a jury in traffic court. And yes, they have their bases covered. Going into a higher court and shouting "MAI CONSTITUTIONS!!!" will just get you thrown out most of the time. Any constitution based case has a huge legal team behind it.

Traffic violations are not seen as crimes, per se. They are seen as violations related to your right to drive on public roads. You can't go to prison unless some other crime (vehicular manslaughter, etc) was committed, at which point you will have a jury. That is why you don't get a jury for such a minor thing.

FreakyLocz14
April 27th, 2010, 07:39 AM
Y'know, I'm not really sure. Might be held in contempt of the court, depending on the judge. Dx

Well appelate courts work differently. The worst that can happen is they reject your argument and affirm your conviction.

So, in other words, you want the trials to take even longer due to needing a jury? I'm sure California already has quite the waiting period.

And you want your fines from the case and your taxes to be even higher? They do have to pay the jury.

Also: It does not violate the constitution to not have a jury in traffic court. And yes, they have their bases covered. Going into a higher court and shouting "MAI CONSTITUTIONS!!!" will just get you thrown out most of the time. Any constitution based case has a huge legal team behind it.

Traffic violations are not seen as crimes, per se. They are seen as violations related to your right to drive on public roads. You can't go to prison unless some other crime (vehicular manslaughter, etc) was committed, at which point you will have a jury. That is why you don't get a jury for such a minor thing.

Did you read the text of the 7th Amendment? The Founding Fathers specifically wrote that Amendment to prevent governments from taking people's money without due process of law. It is not due process when someone who works for and is paid by a party in a case is the trier of fact or the trier of law.

Traffic violations are criminal cases here in California and they are filed and prosecuted by the District Attorney's office, just the most minor kinds. I'm sure with all the money these courts get rich off citations at $200-1000 a pop and I've seen the traffic court full on a daily basis they won't be taking a huge economic blow.

Shadow
April 27th, 2010, 03:10 PM
Did you read the text of the 7th Amendment?
Yes, but so has every law maker. Trust me, they wouldn't do something without making sure their bases are covered. They are certainly sure to follow every guideline the Constitution has set when dealing with this, so you're not going to get out of paying your traffic ticket by shouting that it's unconstitutional.
The Founding Fathers specifically wrote that Amendment to prevent governments from taking people's money without due process of law. It is not due process when someone who works for and is paid by a party in a case is the trier of fact or the trier of law.
Now I'm going to ask you something. Did you ever study the balance of power in public school? The three branches of government?

The judges are not hired by the same people who write the laws. They are in the judicial branch of government (and yes, it even goes local - it's more than just the Supreme Court). The laws are written by the legislative branch.

Would you honestly want a court/judge run by a corporation? How else are you going to have a judge with legal standing who is not hired by the government?
Traffic violations are criminal cases here in California and they are filed and prosecuted by the District Attorney's office, just the most minor kinds. I'm sure with all the money these courts get rich off citations at $200-1000 a pop and I've seen the traffic court full on a daily basis they won't be taking a huge economic blow.

Let's see. A $200 citation. They have to pay the police officers (and for the gas in their cars, their equipment, etc), the judges, and all the clerks who handle the fees and processing, already. Throw in 6-12 more people who really don't want to be there and need to be paid. Then they have to delay every case by a few weeks to get in contact with the people.

I don't know about you, but I've heard the California government is quite a bit behind in their budget. I really doubt they're making too much money off these tickets if they have to give I O U's out...

FreakyLocz14
April 27th, 2010, 08:46 PM
Yes, but so has every law maker. Trust me, they wouldn't do something without making sure their bases are covered. They are certainly sure to follow every guideline the Constitution has set when dealing with this, so you're not going to get out of paying your traffic ticket by shouting that it's unconstitutional.

Now I'm going to ask you something. Did you ever study the balance of power in public school? The three branches of government?

The judges are not hired by the same people who write the laws. They are in the judicial branch of government (and yes, it even goes local - it's more than just the Supreme Court). The laws are written by the legislative branch.

Would you honestly want a court/judge run by a corporation? How else are you going to have a judge with legal standing who is not hired by the government?


Let's see. A $200 citation. They have to pay the police officers (and for the gas in their cars, their equipment, etc), the judges, and all the clerks who handle the fees and processing, already. Throw in 6-12 more people who really don't want to be there and need to be paid. Then they have to delay every case by a few weeks to get in contact with the people.

I don't know about you, but I've heard the California government is quite a bit behind in their budget. I really doubt they're making too much money off these tickets if they have to give I O U's out...

Law makers have made laws plenty of times that eventually get strucken down. It is not uncommon for unconstitutional laws to be passed.

No I would not want a judge hired by a corporation but normally it's not a judge's role to try facts that's the job of the jury. The jury is the trier of fact and the judge is the trier of law. I've seen a judge asked who they represent in these cases and he answered "I represent the State of California." How is that not a conflict of interest?