Re: meritocracy?

On 21 Apr, 21:00, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:08 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 20 Apr, 19:00, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 20, 11:56 am, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 20 Apr, 15:17, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:47 am, Shane <remar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:35:57 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:02 am, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 19, 8:24 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 19, 10:12 pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Timberwoof

<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <JcKlf3BU6dCIF...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[1] It's been said that both communism and libertarianism require people
to be unhumanly good.

A lot of systems require that.

For instance, Republican economic theory is based on the hypothesis that
people are simple profit-maximizing automatons ... inhumanly good.

Interestingly, some systems act as though they know that people are not
inuhmanly good. For instance, many city councils know that if you put
cops at traffic intersections and hand out tickets to people who run red
lights, people will soon stop running red lights. But if you put up
automated cameras instead, the punishment for the infraction comes weeks
later in the mail. No lesson is learned and the city continues to reap
the economic benefits of red-light runners. (And so do the manufacturers
of the cameras, body shops, health insurance companies, and lawyers.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." u‹Chris L.

I think that the problem is too few cameras. If there were cameras at
enough intersections so that the drivers knew that getting a ticket
was a very high probability, lights would not be run. The same can be
said for radar speed cameras.

Except for the fact the camera cannot know who is driving when the
light gets run...we used to have something called "reasonable doubt"
that had some sort of role in the judicial system of the US...can't
quite recall what, though...

Chris

It seems to me that reasonable doubt still plays a role in criminal
proceedings.

Traffic laws can be [and have been] written so that it is the
registered owner who receives the fine in cases of photo radar and red
light cameras. If you do not like to receive these tickets, it's
really simple....don't speed or run lights, and be judicious about who
you lend your car to. You will never have a problem, and the roads
will become safer.

That's obscene.

Well your level of obscenity differs somewhat from mine. I live in
Austalia, where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car
owner to know who has their vehicle or bear the penalties unknown users
accrue} applies. It is part of the responsibility of owning a car and
stems largely from the idea that ownership of a car and use of the roads
is a privlege that carries obligations and not a right to be used to
tacitly condone lawlessness.

Of course there are responsibilities to auto ownership. I have my car
inspected annually for emissions and safety factors. I don't drink and
drive, and would not let anyone who does use my car. That does not
give the government the right to assume my guilt rather than my
innocence on any level- especially when the ticketing agent is a
camera. The state has virtually limitless resources at its disposal
compared to the average citizen. Giving it the power to assume guilt
at any level is a dangerous step. If I get a ticket from a police
officer I can have my day in court. And I have, and I have seen police
get thoroughly reamed by the judge for abuse of power. I have no
opportunity for that with the cameras. I am guilty and cannot fight
it- says so right there on the summons. And as others have pointed
out these devices are often not used for safety purposes but enhanced
revenue streams for municipalities. Some locales have even shortened
the yellow lights in order to issue more tickets, despite research
that shows longer yellow lights reduce accidents. So yes, I consider
it obscene to reduce my civil liberties like that.

Chris

I don't think it's a case of a generic assumption of guilt, since it
can be proved that an infraction has been committed.
If it can be proved that the infraction has been committed by someone
driving your car, it's resonable to assume that it was you who
committed the infraction, unless you can reasonably prove that the car
wasn't in your possession at the moment.

Well, that's exactly the opposite of the way the American judicial
system is supposed to work. Guilt and innocence are decided by trial-
and that option is expressley denied the owner in New York at least.

I'm no expert on the American judicial system but I don't think that
traffic violations are usually decided by trial.

Of course it is. Not a criminal trial, but a civil one, presided over
by an administrative law judge.

I suppose this happens if the violation is disputed.
In which case the police will be able to provide the photage as
evidence. Depending on the camera placement, the driver could be
recognizable in the picture. If the driver is not recognizable, I
think that the court will place the onus of proving their innocence on
the owner. (I think the term for it is "burden of leading evidence")

I don't think this is unfair. Ownership, expecially of goods that can
be easly used to cause harm (like cars and guns) bears
responsabilities.

Likewise, if someone is shot and killed and the police find out that
the bullet was shot by a gun registered to you, it is reasonable to
assume that you are the killer unless you can reasonably prove that
the gun wasn't in your possession at the moment.

Well, that's exactly the opposite of the way the American judicial
system is supposed to work. Guilt is decided at trial. If a gun that
was used in a murder is registered to me it gives the authorities a
reasonable place to start their inquiries.

So let's assume that the investigation finds no direct evidence for
either your presence or absence on the crime scene and you aren't able
to provide neither a convincing alibi nor an argument to support the
claim that the gun wasn't in your possession.
Let's also say that you have a possible motive for killing the victim.

What do you think it would be reasonable for the court to decide?

Not guilty. Note the phrasing of the verdict. It doesn't say
"innocent". It says the state was unable to find enough evidence- or
found it illegally, perhaps- to convict.

I would think that the most likely explanation was that the owner of
the gun is the perpetrator.
Perhaps it's not likely enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for
you.
It's a matter of opinion I think.

Compared to me, the state has
infinite power and resources.

The state has to split its resources in thousands, perhaps millions,
cases. The resources it may invest in each case are limited.

If they are not held to proper standards
of behavior the result is tyranny- and it always starts with stupid
things like traffic violations.

This appears to be a slippery slope argument.

Anyway, consider that some crimes would not be punishable by your
standards of "reasonable doubt". Consider all the crimes perpetrated
on the internet. The best evidence the state may obtain (unless they
place surveliance systems in people's residences and workplaces) is
the name of the owner of the internet connection that was used to
commit the crime.
If claiming that somebody else was using your computer without
providing supporting evidence is a valid defence, then no such crime
will be punishable.


Perhaps you see no
difference; I find the notion of the government assuming my guilt to
be extremely disturbing.

It depends on whether the assumption is based on solid evidence that
withstands counter-examination in a proper trial.

It's not an assumption if legal evidence is presented at a proper
trial. That's not the issue under discussion. It's the presumption of
guilt without a trial that's cause for concern- and that IS what we're
talking about.

Actually I don't think so.

No offense, but your way leads straight to
Gitmo.

People are sent to Gitmo without any trial and not awarded the usual
legal protection.

And we're not at that point yet...except for Jose Padilla and a few
others. Is that cause for concern?

Chris


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: meritocracy?
    ... lights, people will soon stop running red lights. ... where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car ... Giving it the power to assume guilt ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: meritocracy?
    ... lights, people will soon stop running red lights. ... automated cameras instead, the punishment for the infraction comes weeks ... where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car ... commit the crime. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: meritocracy?
    ... lights, people will soon stop running red lights. ... automated cameras instead, the punishment for the infraction comes weeks ... If you do not like to receive these tickets, ... where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: meritocracy?
    ... lights, people will soon stop running red lights. ... automated cameras instead, the punishment for the infraction comes weeks ... where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car ... Giving it the power to assume guilt ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: meritocracy?
    ... lights, people will soon stop running red lights. ... automated cameras instead, the punishment for the infraction comes weeks ... If you do not like to receive these tickets, ... where "owner onus" (the responsibility of the registered car ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading