Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Politics Today in Obvious Solutions
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Levi Pulkkinen on the advice from Jesuit University researchers:
Immediate change is needed in the prosecution of low-level driving offenses and drug crimes, Seattle University researchers said in announcing the results of a study of the nation's misdemeanor courts.The nation's misdemeanor courts, which handle criminal cases that carry less than a one-year jail term, are stressed to the point that many jurisdictions fail to provide low-income defendants with constitutionally mandated legal counsel, said Professor Bob Boruchowitz, lead researcher on the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers-supported study. Much of that load could be removed if authorities would handle some non-injury driving offenses and simple drug possession like they currently process traffic infractions.
Boruchowitz says that low-level marijuana crimes should be decriminalized and treated as infractions, like a parking ticket. Washington's supermajority of Democratic legislators had a chance to do that this year—but the cowards didn't. Which is why groups like the ACLU of Washington, the King County Bar Association, the Defender Association, and organizations holding dough on the East Coast need to take the advice of academic researchers and run an initiative in Washington.
Thanks for the tip, Nathan.
Share via
1
Low-level driving offenses? You're talking about giving people driving on suspended licenses a free pass, aren't you? Fuck that shit. Fines for every driving offense should be tripled TODAY, and getting caught without a license should mean making it PERMANENT, with JAIL TIME on the next offense. Bad drivers kill people. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
3
I realize that the likelihood of actual Jesuits doing this research is slim, but I still like to say that Jesuits are by far the coolest order of priests in the Catholic Church (except maybe the Basilians). If it weren't for them, things would be even worse. And that is really saying something.
4
After a speeding ticket, went to court for mitigation hearing. Observed justice in action. For the driving without insurance cases, typically the person would say they were still looking for a job, and when they found one, they would get insurance, and the judge said okay fine, I'll will extend you another 60 days, keep trying. The ones who had already had a few hearings and had been told to keep trying who had found a job and gotten insurance, she would either give them deferred prosecution or reduce that $490 fine down to about $200. These "hearings" took about 2 minutes each and all the defendants knew exactly what to say, despite about 40% of them being non native English speakers.
When I left, there wasn't one person waiting there at the bus stop -- obviously they were all driving to court even for their hearings on driving without insurance.
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that 20% of all drivers, have no insurance?
When I left, there wasn't one person waiting there at the bus stop -- obviously they were all driving to court even for their hearings on driving without insurance.
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that 20% of all drivers, have no insurance?
5
That's what special sessions like the one we'll have in a month are for.
That and getting rid of corporate tax exemptions.
That and getting rid of corporate tax exemptions.
6
you are dead wrong fnarf, the people who are burdened by the Driving with license suspended are uniformly poor. They don't have the means to pay the fines, court costs, att'y fees, and other legal miscellanea that the current system requires, let alone a trebled fee.
The primary problem is that these types of crimes are too large to be addressed by the court system. There aren't enough prosecutors, judges or public defenders. Justice isn't done with a 2 minute arraignment where a defendant is denied the right to effective counsel.
The primary problem is that these types of crimes are too large to be addressed by the court system. There aren't enough prosecutors, judges or public defenders. Justice isn't done with a 2 minute arraignment where a defendant is denied the right to effective counsel.
7
We should socialize auto insurance and the state level and pay for it with an increase to the gas tax (which would unfortunately require a state constitutional amendment.) That way everyone would be covered and everyone would pay on a per-mile basis. The true costs of insuring driving would be felt with every trip.
As for drivers with infractions, rather than raising insurance rates (which would be pre-paid by the state) you would impose a one-time fine equal to the additional cost to insure their more dangerous behavior over the typical three years an infraction is one someone's driving record.
In the case of an accident, the state settles based upon the facts of the case (with no profit motive for failing to pay claims) and if either party is aggrieved they can pursue a court case to collect more damages, as they can now.
You'd still have people who were driving without a license, particularly those who had tickets they hadn't paid, but you wouldn't have the subset of people who got a ticket for failure to pay insurance, and then couldn't pay, and then lost their license. You'd separate people without money from people who are just flouting the system.
As for drivers with infractions, rather than raising insurance rates (which would be pre-paid by the state) you would impose a one-time fine equal to the additional cost to insure their more dangerous behavior over the typical three years an infraction is one someone's driving record.
In the case of an accident, the state settles based upon the facts of the case (with no profit motive for failing to pay claims) and if either party is aggrieved they can pursue a court case to collect more damages, as they can now.
You'd still have people who were driving without a license, particularly those who had tickets they hadn't paid, but you wouldn't have the subset of people who got a ticket for failure to pay insurance, and then couldn't pay, and then lost their license. You'd separate people without money from people who are just flouting the system.
8
@6, poor people don't get an exemption from the traffic laws. If you can't afford the fines, DON'T BREAK THE LAW. Guess how many traffic tickets I've got in the last thirty-odd years? NONE. See how that works?
I'm not a particularly great driver, but I pay attention, signal, stop at red lights and stop signs and crosswalks, merge and yield appropriately, and stay within shouting distance of speed limits. Oh, yeah, and I don't drive drunk. It's not that fucking hard.
The only reason to not be able to afford insurance is if you're a shitty driver with a million violations who has to go to Vern Fonk. Again, there is an easy way to avoid that problem.
And most fines, from speeding to littering, are still stuck in the seventies. Virtually all of them should be raised with the times. How many fines are in line with their inflation-adjusted values in, say, 1950?
I'm not a particularly great driver, but I pay attention, signal, stop at red lights and stop signs and crosswalks, merge and yield appropriately, and stay within shouting distance of speed limits. Oh, yeah, and I don't drive drunk. It's not that fucking hard.
The only reason to not be able to afford insurance is if you're a shitty driver with a million violations who has to go to Vern Fonk. Again, there is an easy way to avoid that problem.
And most fines, from speeding to littering, are still stuck in the seventies. Virtually all of them should be raised with the times. How many fines are in line with their inflation-adjusted values in, say, 1950?
9
An initiative that these should be citation-level offenses might pass. The Supreme Court just ruled that cops can't go on car-searching rampages for just any old thing, so anyone arrested for possession should demand a lawyer who can question the search.
But if you want to decriminalize or legalize, put the pressure on your electeds about the costs. An initiative measure will run into a prison-police buzzsaw. The police and the prosecutors are stealing big-time with the 'forfeiture' laws. They're not going to want to give that up. They invite the feds in so they won't have to put the forfeiture money in the school budgets, and the feds love having the ability to spy on us with their computers and informers.
Drug prohibition is a big industry making lots of money for police and prosecutors who might otherwise have to work for a living. The best way to get rid of it is to make it plain to our representatives that they are being made the fall-guys for bad policy.
But if you want to decriminalize or legalize, put the pressure on your electeds about the costs. An initiative measure will run into a prison-police buzzsaw. The police and the prosecutors are stealing big-time with the 'forfeiture' laws. They're not going to want to give that up. They invite the feds in so they won't have to put the forfeiture money in the school budgets, and the feds love having the ability to spy on us with their computers and informers.
Drug prohibition is a big industry making lots of money for police and prosecutors who might otherwise have to work for a living. The best way to get rid of it is to make it plain to our representatives that they are being made the fall-guys for bad policy.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (9) RSS