[sci.electronics] Legal ?s

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