Red light and/or speed cameras are banned in many parts of the US, because courts have repeatedly ruled that they’re unconstitutional. The constitution’s sixth amendment guarantees the right to argue against your accuser in court. This was originally intended to prevent secret surprise court rulings, which the British used against Americans leading up to and during the revolution; The crown would accuse people of crimes and try them without any notice. When they obviously failed to show up to court, they were found guilty in absentia and arrested.
Regional courts have repeatedly banned the cameras, by ruling that because people can’t argue against an inanimate object, the object can’t accuse people of crimes. Basically, the constitution says you have the right to get your day in court, and some courts have interpreted that to mean the automated cameras violate that right.
Isn’t the accuser in that case the police or whoever is in charge of those cameras?
If it were a cop pulling you over and writing a ticket, sure. It would be that cop. They can show up in court and stand as a witness for you to cross-examine. But if the entire system is automated, which specific cop is the accuser?
Is the system completely automated in the US? We still have people from that department going through each picture, checking if there is indeed a violation. That person will then type out your license plate and a letter is sent to you.
If you pay, it’s done. If you don’t pay you will have to show up to court and make your case, while they will show up with that picture and date/time as proof.
The accuser in that case is the person that read the license plate from the picture.
In many localities voters have used initiative powers to ban red light cameras and in some jurisdictions red-light camera fines are deemed constitutional violations because the US Constitution requires those accused of crimes to be able to “confront their accuser” in court which is not possible if the accuser is a machine.
Drivers in the US would start treating that middle light as go and we’d be right back to square one
You don’t need to do a lot of enforcement to change that behaviour. And you can do the enforcement with red light cameras
Fuck red light cameras and fuck you for suggesting them.
Red light and/or speed cameras are banned in many parts of the US, because courts have repeatedly ruled that they’re unconstitutional. The constitution’s sixth amendment guarantees the right to argue against your accuser in court. This was originally intended to prevent secret surprise court rulings, which the British used against Americans leading up to and during the revolution; The crown would accuse people of crimes and try them without any notice. When they obviously failed to show up to court, they were found guilty in absentia and arrested.
Regional courts have repeatedly banned the cameras, by ruling that because people can’t argue against an inanimate object, the object can’t accuse people of crimes. Basically, the constitution says you have the right to get your day in court, and some courts have interpreted that to mean the automated cameras violate that right.
That’s weird. Isn’t the accuser in that case the police or whoever is in charge of those cameras? The camera just provides evidence, doesn’t it?
If it were a cop pulling you over and writing a ticket, sure. It would be that cop. They can show up in court and stand as a witness for you to cross-examine. But if the entire system is automated, which specific cop is the accuser?
Is the system completely automated in the US? We still have people from that department going through each picture, checking if there is indeed a violation. That person will then type out your license plate and a letter is sent to you.
If you pay, it’s done. If you don’t pay you will have to show up to court and make your case, while they will show up with that picture and date/time as proof.
The accuser in that case is the person that read the license plate from the picture.
In many localities voters have used initiative powers to ban red light cameras and in some jurisdictions red-light camera fines are deemed constitutional violations because the US Constitution requires those accused of crimes to be able to “confront their accuser” in court which is not possible if the accuser is a machine.
seems like a pretty good reason for revoking a licence to me