rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) (02/23/89)
In article <257@celerity.UUCP> dave@whoops.UUCP (Dave Smith) writes: >[much trash deleted] Can't you guys be nice and keep this bs out of sci.electronics? >The point is that you are accused, judged and a verdict rendered >instantaneously, by a machine with no judgement. This is just plain silly. Neither the policeman nor the machine are required to use the kind of judgement you require -- that's what the judges are for. The policeman merely has the option to cite or not to cite when he sees a violation. If you read the citation, you will see that it is NOT a conviction! >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. No, you're NOT innocent -- you DID break the law! Whether or not one of society's judges will deem it excusable and not require any penalty is the way this system works. Does a verdict of "justifiable homicide" mean no one was killed? >The >burden of proof has been laid on the defendant, who now has to prove that >he/she was speeding for good cause. You always had to justify breaking any law. Sheesh! >[...] 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. Please take this crap away from here and spend some time studying law. Rich -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ideas have consequences. RSD@sei.cmu.edu Richard Weaver ---------------------------------------------------------------------------