The defendant ONLY has to introduce reasonable doubt as to his/her own guilt.
And I'm saying that "It Might have been someone else" is not enough to introduce 'reasonable doubt'. If you had additional facts, such as who it might have been, or a reason why it might have been someone else, then that Might be enough.
Prosecutor:"The victim was killed with your own gun, and you were found standing over the body 5 seconds after the shot was fired, holding the gun." Defendant:"It Might have been someone else." Fuzznutz: "Seems like reasonable doubt to me: Not Guilty." FredKlein:"Wait. WHO might it have been? HOW could it have happened? WHAT facts dispute the supplied evidence? WHY would someone have gone thru an elaborate frame-up like this? WHERE did the 'real' murderer disappear to?" Fuzznutz:"Shut up. Not Guilty."
The law clearly says that the owner of the vehicle shall be ticketed, regardless of whether the owner even committed the violation.
Then that's the law. Obey it, or face the penalties.
Its an unjust law.
I'm sure murderers thing laws against murder are unjust. I'm sure drug dealers thing laws against dealing drugs are unjust.
Driving is a privledge, not a Right. Obey the rules, or you get penalized. Get penalized enough, you lose the privledge to drive. Don't like it? Change the law.
We don't need the cameras at all, because increasing yellow light time will stop 90% of the violations. As in 90% of cars that previously were running the light no longer are.
And the other 10%? We just let then get away with it, right? I mean, 90% is good. You'd certainly be satisfied if your car started 90% of the time, or if you took home 90% of your pay, right? (If this is true, I'll send you my address, and you can send me the other 10% each week, okay?)
Ignore the research if you want, but when RLC go onto an intersection the number of accidents increase
What TYPE of accidents?
Could be because people slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow for fear of being ticketed.
I can certainly see an increase in fender-benders when drivers slam on the brakes to stop (which means they were travaling too fast to begin with- again, poor driving), and get rear-ended. But I also see a reduction in FATAL 'T-bone' crashes.
Its a direct corolation, because when they're removed, accident rates go down.
Nope- when drivers beleive they are no longer there, accidents go down. Whether or not the cameras are actually there makes no difference- it's the different actions the DRIVERS take, based on what they beleive that results on more/fewer accidents.
And a Good Driver will not change the way they drive just because a camera is pointed at them, just like a Good Citizen will not change the way they act if a camera is pointed at them. The only people who change their actions are people who are afraid of getting caught. In other words, people who were doing something wrong to begin with. Hence my 'poor drivers' comment.
Now, an obvious exception exists where other conditions are changed- such as Yellow Lights being shortened, etc. But if that has happened, it's trivial to prove- sit there with a video camera thru one cycle of the traffic light.
But go ahead, plug your ears and yell NA NA NA NA You're just a bunch of lawbreakers!!!
You're the one plugging your ears and yelling 'NA NA NA NA I wanna get away with poor driving!!!'
If you give them the driver, they'll go after the driver,
Which is what I've said you should do all along. So what's the problem? You don't want to 'rat' on your friend or family? Then pay the price for protecting the guilty.
your defense lawyer would tear the case in half if all they had was a bullet match to your gun.
Then hire that same lawyer to get yourself out of the red light ticket.
If the cops find my gun at a murder scene, charge me with homicide, and the state presents no other evidence connecting me with the crime other than that gun, they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof (the standard being "guilt beyond resonable doubt"), and I should be acquitted without presenting a defense.
That depends on your definition of "reasonable doubt", doesn't it? If you were the ONLY person to have access to that gun (you always kept the gun in a gun safe and you were the only one to have a key to that safe, for instance) then that points to you quite strongly. If ONLY your fingerprints were on the gun, that points to you even more strongly.
At this point, absent any refutation of the above evidence, I know I'd vote 'guilty'.
Of course, all this only applies to a CRIMINAL case. Traffic fines are handled as 'administrative fees' and such, and don't have the same rules.
it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt....and having YOUR car on film breaking the law is certainly a piece of evidence toward that.
He can introduce circumstantial evidence that the accused was likely the offending party due to his/her ownership of the vehicle.
Exactly: the accused was likely the offending party. That's enough to point the finger of guilt at the accused. And, absent any other evidence, that finger remains pointed in that direction.
The accused does not HAVE to prove someone else drove the car, only introduce reasonable doubt that someone else COULD!!!!
But "it might, maybe, could have happened differently" does not count as a defense. If you claim it "COULD" have been someone else, you have to back that bare statement up with facts. You can't just say "My car 'COULD' have been driven by a member of Congress that day." You'd have to have evidence to back that up. A good first step would be the name of the Congressman who supposedly drove our car.
Same with claiming it "COULD" have been a friend or family member. Which one? Why? Just saying it "COULD" have been someone else if NOT enough of a defense.
When you try someone you have to have enough evidence to put a case to trial.
I guess we differ in what 'enough evidence' is.
these people can't be proven to have knowingly done it?
There's a HUGE difference between having a hidden program running on your PC and having a physically large, monetarilly expensive, lokcked machine being driven around.
If you can introduce reasonable doubt among your peers or the administrative judge, the state cannot prove guilt.
Then do that.
I think you'll have a hard time introdicing reasonable doubt that YOU were not driving YOUR car that YOU have the keys to, without naming the actual driver.
fredklein wrote that the accused should "show" (i.e., prove) innocence or be held responsible.
If the evidence all points toward one person, and that person does NOT provide ('show', 'prove') any contradictory evidence, they should be found guilty.
On the other hand, if there is NO EVIDENCE at all, the defendant should be considered innocent.
So you are saying all I have to do is *prove* that I am innocent.
Boy, reading comprehansion sucks these days.
What I'm saying is that they have evidecne that points to you as being guilty. If you cannot refute that evidence, then you will be found guilty.
Just like it happens in court every day.
"Guilty until proven Innocent" means they assume you are guilty, WITH NO EVIDENCE. That does not apply here, as they have a pic of YOUR car breaking the law. They HAVE evidence. (Poor evidence, but evidence nonetheless.)
What you are describing is "guilty until proven innocent"
No, what I'm describing is "they already have evidence that points to you. If you cannot refute that evidence, then you will be considered guilty".
No one's 'assuming you're guilty'. They are saying that, based upon the evidence they have so far (the pic of YOUR car running a red), you appear to be guilty. If you have other evidence to introduce (like the name of the person who was driving), you have a chance to do so.
What do I want them to do? Not accuse people without proof. How hard is that?
It's quite easy. But it is not a workable legal system. If the prosecutor has to have "proof" before they even accuse someone, then very few people would ever get tried.
That's why we have a system that lets prosecutors accuse people if they have enough evidence. Not "proof". Evidence.
it isn't reasonable to assume that a car is always being driven by its owner.
But it's a good place to start if you want to find out who WAS actually driving.
I have indeed heard of towns shortening the Yellow period in order to 'catch' more people running the red. Of course... if you are a careful driver, it shouldn't matter.
as well as firing as much as 2 seconds earlier that the light was actually red.
All the red light cameras I've seen include the traffic light in the picture. Kinda hard to get someone for running a red light if the picture shows the light was not red.
I might encourage the city to issue 'warnings'
"Mr/Mrs Citizen, please be aware that our fingerprint matching machine shows your fingerprints on a murder weapon. Murdering people is a leading cause of death and a hazard to those of us in the rest of society. Please be more courteous and thoughtful in the future or you may get arrested by one of our Police Officers."
Look, just because it's an automated system dosn't mean the evidence it shows should be ignored.
No. The State provides evidence of your guilt. (YOUR car, registered in YOUR name, which YOU hold the keys to.)
If you have contradictory evidence (I sold the car to someone else. Or, someone else was driving that day), then you get a chance to present that evidence.
Then a decision is made as to your guilt or not. THAT'S the way it works in the USA....at least for CRIMINAL matters. Traffic offences are usually not considered criminal matters, but are often 'administrative fines' in order to side-step legal nit-picking (Like the right to face your accuser, etc).
If they thought you guilty of a homicide (I mean, what else can they think- it's your gun!), they'd do more than 'come see you'. They'd burst in the door, guns drawn, throw you on the ground, and arrest you. If you can prove your alibi, then they'll let you go. Just like, if your car is photo'd running a red light, they send the ticket to you, and if you can prove it was not you, they'll 'let you go'.
The problem with that logic is holding one person responsible for the crimes committed by another.
No. They are ACCUSING the person who pays for the internet service of (mis-)using that service to commit Copyright violations. If the person who pays for the connection can show they are not the ones who did it, then the RIAA will move on to the real perpetrators. Otherwise, it's completely reasonable to hold the 'owner' responsible for damage done by his property.
If an employee misuses their computer and network connection, is the employer responsible for the crimes of the employee?
If I worked for 'Joe's Autoshop', and downloaded kiddy pron on Joe's DSL line, the cops sure as hell would come for Joe. Then he'd offer evidence that he was out of town when it happened, and that _I_ was working at that time and had access to the computer. Then the cops would release him and come for me. See? Simple.
If someone breaks into one of your computers at work and uses them to commit a crime, are you responsible because the equipment is yours?
Again, the cops would come to me (as the owner of the computer) first. I can then show them the broken window, provide an alibi, and they'll let me go about my business.
What do you suggest the cops do? Arrest random people off the street rather than start with the owner of the computer?
All you have proof of is that something owned by a particular individual was used in the commission of a crime. You do not have proof that that individual was the guilty party.
But that is enough for the police to arrest (or at LEAST question) you. It's enough to get you put on trial.
If the item is a common item (a Yellow #2 pencil), then there is loads of doubt. Was it MY Yellow #2 pencil, or one of the MILLIONS of others that are made each year? Even if it was mine, anyone could have taken one from by desk/bag/etc.
When an item is specific (Make, model, color of car, with a specific license plate), there is little doubt as to the owner. When, in addition, that item is secure from use without a specific key (like a car), then it is reasonable to assume that if that item is being used, it is being used by its owner (or someone the owner trusts). Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that any MIS-use of that item was done by the owner.
What do you propose? That the cops start sending tickets to random people in the same town, instead of the owner of the car? The owner is the only piece of information they have, until and unless the owner tells them who was actually driving.
All you have to do to get around this is is move the camera and make sure that it has the resolution to photograph the actual suspect, and then you will have enough evidence.
And I've agreed elsewhere that they should do this.
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.
If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.
Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".
Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.
the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified,/i>
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.
If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.
Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".
Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The defendant ONLY has to introduce reasonable doubt as to his/her own guilt.
:-(
And I'm saying that "It Might have been someone else" is not enough to introduce 'reasonable doubt'. If you had additional facts, such as who it might have been, or a reason why it might have been someone else, then that Might be enough.
Prosecutor:"The victim was killed with your own gun, and you were found standing over the body 5 seconds after the shot was fired, holding the gun."
Defendant:"It Might have been someone else."
Fuzznutz: "Seems like reasonable doubt to me: Not Guilty."
FredKlein:"Wait. WHO might it have been? HOW could it have happened? WHAT facts dispute the supplied evidence? WHY would someone have gone thru an elaborate frame-up like this? WHERE did the 'real' murderer disappear to?"
Fuzznutz:"Shut up. Not Guilty."
I've served on juries with people like you.
The law clearly says that the owner of the vehicle shall be ticketed, regardless of whether the owner even committed the violation.
Then that's the law. Obey it, or face the penalties.
Its an unjust law.
I'm sure murderers thing laws against murder are unjust.
I'm sure drug dealers thing laws against dealing drugs are unjust.
Driving is a privledge, not a Right. Obey the rules, or you get penalized. Get penalized enough, you lose the privledge to drive. Don't like it? Change the law.
We don't need the cameras at all, because increasing yellow light time will stop 90% of the violations. As in 90% of cars that previously were running the light no longer are.
And the other 10%? We just let then get away with it, right? I mean, 90% is good. You'd certainly be satisfied if your car started 90% of the time, or if you took home 90% of your pay, right? (If this is true, I'll send you my address, and you can send me the other 10% each week, okay?)
Ignore the research if you want, but when RLC go onto an intersection the number of accidents increase
What TYPE of accidents?
Could be because people slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow for fear of being ticketed.
I can certainly see an increase in fender-benders when drivers slam on the brakes to stop (which means they were travaling too fast to begin with- again, poor driving), and get rear-ended. But I also see a reduction in FATAL 'T-bone' crashes.
Its a direct corolation, because when they're removed, accident rates go down.
Nope- when drivers beleive they are no longer there, accidents go down. Whether or not the cameras are actually there makes no difference- it's the different actions the DRIVERS take, based on what they beleive that results on more/fewer accidents.
And a Good Driver will not change the way they drive just because a camera is pointed at them, just like a Good Citizen will not change the way they act if a camera is pointed at them. The only people who change their actions are people who are afraid of getting caught. In other words, people who were doing something wrong to begin with. Hence my 'poor drivers' comment.
Now, an obvious exception exists where other conditions are changed- such as Yellow Lights being shortened, etc. But if that has happened, it's trivial to prove- sit there with a video camera thru one cycle of the traffic light.
But go ahead, plug your ears and yell NA NA NA NA You're just a bunch of lawbreakers!!!
You're the one plugging your ears and yelling 'NA NA NA NA I wanna get away with poor driving!!!'
If you give them the driver, they'll go after the driver,
Which is what I've said you should do all along. So what's the problem? You don't want to 'rat' on your friend or family? Then pay the price for protecting the guilty.
your defense lawyer would tear the case in half if all they had was a bullet match to your gun.
Then hire that same lawyer to get yourself out of the red light ticket.
I propose trashing the cameras
And let those that break the law get away with it. Good job!
RLC actually INCREASE the number of accidents at an intersection
No- poor driving (and possibly shortened yellow lights) increases accidents.
If the cops find my gun at a murder scene, charge me with homicide, and the state presents no other evidence connecting me with the crime other than that gun, they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof (the standard being "guilt beyond resonable doubt"), and I should be acquitted without presenting a defense.
That depends on your definition of "reasonable doubt", doesn't it?
If you were the ONLY person to have access to that gun (you always kept the gun in a gun safe and you were the only one to have a key to that safe, for instance) then that points to you quite strongly. If ONLY your fingerprints were on the gun, that points to you even more strongly.
At this point, absent any refutation of the above evidence, I know I'd vote 'guilty'.
Of course, all this only applies to a CRIMINAL case. Traffic fines are handled as 'administrative fees' and such, and don't have the same rules.
it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove guilt. ...and having YOUR car on film breaking the law is certainly a piece of evidence toward that.
He can introduce circumstantial evidence that the accused was likely the offending party due to his/her ownership of the vehicle.
Exactly: the accused was likely the offending party. That's enough to point the finger of guilt at the accused. And, absent any other evidence, that finger remains pointed in that direction.
The accused does not HAVE to prove someone else drove the car, only introduce reasonable doubt that someone else COULD!!!!
But "it might, maybe, could have happened differently" does not count as a defense. If you claim it "COULD" have been someone else, you have to back that bare statement up with facts. You can't just say "My car 'COULD' have been driven by a member of Congress that day." You'd have to have evidence to back that up. A good first step would be the name of the Congressman who supposedly drove our car.
Same with claiming it "COULD" have been a friend or family member. Which one? Why? Just saying it "COULD" have been someone else if NOT enough of a defense.
When you try someone you have to have enough evidence to put a case to trial.
I guess we differ in what 'enough evidence' is.
these people can't be proven to have knowingly done it?
There's a HUGE difference between having a hidden program running on your PC and having a physically large, monetarilly expensive, lokcked machine being driven around.
If you can introduce reasonable doubt among your peers or the administrative judge, the state cannot prove guilt.
Then do that.
I think you'll have a hard time introdicing reasonable doubt that YOU were not driving YOUR car that YOU have the keys to, without naming the actual driver.
What about lights that are illegally set to less than three seconds of yellow time (violation of FEDERAL law)?
Get them on video tape. Present tape to court. Ticket gets dismissed, town gets fined, light gets put back to 3+ sec.
fredklein wrote that the accused should "show" (i.e., prove) innocence or be held responsible.
If the evidence all points toward one person, and that person does NOT provide ('show', 'prove') any contradictory evidence, they should be found guilty.
On the other hand, if there is NO EVIDENCE at all, the defendant should be considered innocent.
So you are saying all I have to do is *prove* that I am innocent.
Boy, reading comprehansion sucks these days.
What I'm saying is that they have evidecne that points to you as being guilty. If you cannot refute that evidence, then you will be found guilty.
Just like it happens in court every day.
"Guilty until proven Innocent" means they assume you are guilty, WITH NO EVIDENCE. That does not apply here, as they have a pic of YOUR car breaking the law. They HAVE evidence. (Poor evidence, but evidence nonetheless.)
What you are describing is "guilty until proven innocent"
No, what I'm describing is "they already have evidence that points to you. If you cannot refute that evidence, then you will be considered guilty".
No one's 'assuming you're guilty'. They are saying that, based upon the evidence they have so far (the pic of YOUR car running a red), you appear to be guilty. If you have other evidence to introduce (like the name of the person who was driving), you have a chance to do so.
What do I want them to do? Not accuse people without proof. How hard is that?
It's quite easy. But it is not a workable legal system. If the prosecutor has to have "proof" before they even accuse someone, then very few people would ever get tried.
That's why we have a system that lets prosecutors accuse people if they have enough evidence. Not "proof". Evidence.
it isn't reasonable to assume that a car is always being driven by its owner.
But it's a good place to start if you want to find out who WAS actually driving.
So you've never had roommates, aren't married, and never left your keys anywhere for more than 30 minutes without direct supervision.
Basically true. Anyone who has access to my keys is trusted.
Oh, and everyone KNOWS that you need the keys to steal a car.
If it was stolen, TELL THE COPS, AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO PAY THE FINE. Sheesh.
It is not reasonable *proof*.
I never said it was ironclad proof. I said it was a reasonable place to start.
A DA who prosecutes someone without a solid case will be disbarred
Absolutely false.
They adjusted the timers and software
I have indeed heard of towns shortening the Yellow period in order to 'catch' more people running the red. Of course... if you are a careful driver, it shouldn't matter.
as well as firing as much as 2 seconds earlier that the light was actually red.
All the red light cameras I've seen include the traffic light in the picture. Kinda hard to get someone for running a red light if the picture shows the light was not red.
I might encourage the city to issue 'warnings'
"Mr/Mrs Citizen, please be aware that our fingerprint matching machine shows your fingerprints on a murder weapon. Murdering people is a leading cause of death and a hazard to those of us in the rest of society.
Please be more courteous and thoughtful in the future or you may get arrested by one of our Police Officers."
Look, just because it's an automated system dosn't mean the evidence it shows should be ignored.
The state must prove your guilt.
...at least for CRIMINAL matters. Traffic offences are usually not considered criminal matters, but are often 'administrative fines' in order to side-step legal nit-picking (Like the right to face your accuser, etc).
No. The State provides evidence of your guilt. (YOUR car, registered in YOUR name, which YOU hold the keys to.)
If you have contradictory evidence (I sold the car to someone else. Or, someone else was driving that day), then you get a chance to present that evidence.
Then a decision is made as to your guilt or not. THAT'S the way it works in the USA.
It's traced back to me, cops come to see me...
If they thought you guilty of a homicide (I mean, what else can they think- it's your gun!), they'd do more than 'come see you'. They'd burst in the door, guns drawn, throw you on the ground, and arrest you. If you can prove your alibi, then they'll let you go.
Just like, if your car is photo'd running a red light, they send the ticket to you, and if you can prove it was not you, they'll 'let you go'.
The problem with that logic is holding one person responsible for the crimes committed by another.
No. They are ACCUSING the person who pays for the internet service of (mis-)using that service to commit Copyright violations.
If the person who pays for the connection can show they are not the ones who did it, then the RIAA will move on to the real perpetrators. Otherwise, it's completely reasonable to hold the 'owner' responsible for damage done by his property.
If an employee misuses their computer and network connection, is the employer responsible for the crimes of the employee?
If I worked for 'Joe's Autoshop', and downloaded kiddy pron on Joe's DSL line, the cops sure as hell would come for Joe. Then he'd offer evidence that he was out of town when it happened, and that _I_ was working at that time and had access to the computer. Then the cops would release him and come for me. See? Simple.
If someone breaks into one of your computers at work and uses them to commit a crime, are you responsible because the equipment is yours?
Again, the cops would come to me (as the owner of the computer) first. I can then show them the broken window, provide an alibi, and they'll let me go about my business.
What do you suggest the cops do? Arrest random people off the street rather than start with the owner of the computer?
"Sorry, officer, I don't know who was driving"
"Well, Sir, since it is Your car, it is Your responsibility. Will you pay by cash or check?"
Either way, there is no way for law enforcement to know who was driving...
But they know who the car is registered to. Who is responsible for the use of the car.
All you have proof of is that something owned by a particular individual was used in the commission of a crime. You do not have proof that that individual was the guilty party.
But that is enough for the police to arrest (or at LEAST question) you. It's enough to get you put on trial.
If the item is a common item (a Yellow #2 pencil), then there is loads of doubt. Was it MY Yellow #2 pencil, or one of the MILLIONS of others that are made each year? Even if it was mine, anyone could have taken one from by desk/bag/etc.
When an item is specific (Make, model, color of car, with a specific license plate), there is little doubt as to the owner. When, in addition, that item is secure from use without a specific key (like a car), then it is reasonable to assume that if that item is being used, it is being used by its owner (or someone the owner trusts). Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that any MIS-use of that item was done by the owner.
What do you propose? That the cops start sending tickets to random people in the same town, instead of the owner of the car? The owner is the only piece of information they have, until and unless the owner tells them who was actually driving.
All you have to do to get around this is is move the camera and make sure that it has the resolution to photograph the actual suspect, and then you will have enough evidence.
And I've agreed elsewhere that they should do this.
But until they do....
Or, if you could simply show that more than one person had access to your gun?
You try telling that to the cops when they show up to arrest you, and see what happens.
Hint: they'll still arrest you.
Puh-leaze. Do you really think the cops would let you go if you told them that? Of course not.
Then why should they 'let you go' from paying the Traffic Fine?
Now, IF you had evidence that showed you were not guilty*... then that's a different story.
*like the name of person who actually drove the car/carried the gun that day.
ARGH. Shudda previewed.
the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.
If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.
Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".
Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.
the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified,/i>
It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.
Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.
If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.
You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.
Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.
Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".
Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.