jad@dayton.UUCP (J. Deters) (02/18/89)
In article <3167@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: > >Well a few come to mind after approx 500 miliseconds of though... > >The presumption of inocence (Damn that constitution, get's 'em every time) >The right to confront your accusors. >The requirement that they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the >radar and camera are in sync. >Prove that the film was not altered. > >John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? >Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You >...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!! How about this for an argument in court? You: If you were in a bank, and a man with a gun came in, would you stop him before he shoots a teller? Cop: Of course. You: Then why don't you stop the speeder, if your reason is to protect the rest of us from speeders? Do these arguments ever work? -j
dave@whoops.celerity (Dave Smith) (02/21/89)
In article <6413@dayton.UUCP> jad@dayton.UUCP (J. Deters) writes: >In article <3167@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >> >>Well a few come to mind after approx 500 miliseconds of though... >> >>The presumption of inocence (Damn that constitution, get's 'em every time) >>The right to confront your accusors. >>The requirement that they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the >>radar and camera are in sync. >>Prove that the film was not altered. > >How about this for an argument in court? > >You: If you were in a bank, and a man with a gun came in, would you stop him > before he shoots a teller? >Cop: Of course. >You: Then why don't you stop the speeder, if your reason is to protect > the rest of us from speeders? The arguments aren't equivalent. It's more like having an automated camera in the bank, which, upon hearing a gunshot zeros in on the noise and takes a picture of the barcoded social-security number which all citizens will be required to put on the back of their clothes. Said number is then compared with the national database and the police show up at your house and duly arrest you. The correlation isn't precise, since very few people switch their plates for phony ones when they're planning to speed and I'm sure bank robbers would switch SSN's. The point is that you are accused, judged and a verdict rendered instantaneously, by a machine with no judgement. Suppose that you were racing to the hospital with an injured person. Had a policeman decided to pull you over for speeding, he would look in the car after stopping you and probably escort you down the freeway with lights and sirens. Instead, you have to go to court afterwards and _prove_that_you_are_innocent. The burden of proof has been laid on the defendant, who now has to prove that he/she was speeding for good cause. In addition, I doubt that the machine will be able to photograph all speeding cars which pass it if all cars on the freeway are speeding. Will it automatically seek out the fastest? Or just those which it sees first. What about the "keeping up with traffic" defense? If speeding was something that only a few people did, these gadgets wouldn't be necessary. Since it's something nearly everyone does, the laws must be wrong. In either case the machines are unnecessary. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man