4 ms·

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded

by nkurz 10y ago

Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed. Should jaywalking itself always be illegal? No, it should depend on whether there is an actual danger and the degree to which it impedes traffic. A more sane law would differentiate between calmly crossing at midnight on an empty street and causing an accident by darting into busy traffic. Should it be illegal to exceed the posted speed limit? I think so, otherwise why not just have "advisory speeds"? Rather than making it illegal to exceed a speed that drivers are expected to exceed and then enforcing selectively, a firmly enforced limit seems much saner. If the goal is fuel efficiency, then legislate that directly. If the goal is safety, then "reasonable and prudent" seems sufficient. like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family I think this is better dealt with at the penalty phase than by selective prosecution. I feel the owner of the lost loaf of bread should have the right to prosecute or not prosecute entirely at their discretion, but once the police are involved I think they should be required enforce the law and leave the discretion to the judge. It it would seem terribly unfair to the property owner for the police on the scene to summarily decide that the theft was justified and the shop owner must absorb the loss.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
You're extremely naive. The US and its individual states have a litany of laws on the books. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday, gay people in particular. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed.
- nkurz 10y ago
  You're extremely naive. Likely, although my belief is only that selective enforcement of a "litany of laws" is worse than universal enforcement of that same overreach, and I don't disagree that it's practically impossible to live life or run a business 100% legally. I'm not questioning that there is ridiculous overreach, only suggesting that universal enforcement might be a solution. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday My usual example when the topic comes up is asking people whether they have been properly self-reporting and paying in-state sales tax on their out-of-state purchases as required by law in most states. I was impressed by one friend (a law professor) who was surprised to learn this, and now strives to be legally compliant. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed. Yes, but I think this is because we are relying so heavily on selective enforcement. It's certainly true that universal enforcement would be very difficult, and may have significant downsides, but I'd bet that if our legislators start losing their driving licenses for speeding offenses (or as you point out, if they, their gay friends, or family members were jailed for sodomy), the congressional gridlock would be broken and a lot of laws would swiftly be changed or repealed.
- adrianN 10y ago
  If every law were properly enforced, then this situation would likely change. In the current situation with selective enforcement you're generally okay until someone in power has a problem with you. Then you're fucked. This is worse than enforcing the laws as they are written in the books, imho.
- lordnacho 10y ago
  If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Cardinal Richelieu
bediger4000 10y ago
I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed. Most certainly - to exclude those in power from being affected by poorly written laws. See the US Congress, and it's choice to not enforce things like insider trading rules, equal opportunity and ADA compliance on itself.
icantdrive55 10y ago
"I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed." 1. We have way too many laws now, and they just keep piling up year, after year. I once heard in California, if you add up all new changes, and bylaws, we are enacting/changing 12,000 laws a year. (I don't have a citation. Just something I heard.) 2. I given up arguing over what laws are needed, and what just sound good. I would like to see the punishment of all laws (criminal, federal, local, etc.) tied to income. Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket. The poor man gets the current $500 ticket. I heard Switzerland is trying this? A poor man gets a $500 ticket; it might just be the last straw? A rich man gets the same ticket; he mentions it over dinner. In my world, high fees for Revenue, is not the way to tax. In many cases these fees seem unconstitutional, but who even cares about that old document anymore?
- manarth 10y ago
  Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket. The poor man gets the current $500 ticket. I heard Switzerland is trying this? They've been trying this for a while - someone received a $290,000 speeding fine in 2010 [1]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm
- dagw 10y ago
  In Sweden many fines are defined in terms of wages instead of fixed amount. So the judge will just fine you (essentially) 45 days wages without having to worry about what that works out to be in in actual money.
kwhitefoot 10y ago
> I'm probably being naive, You certainly are.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I'd be more comfortable with automated prosecutions if automated defense were already one generation more sophisticated. So a camera catches you crossing a street outside of the designated times at a marked crosswalk. Ticketbot 1.0 automatically enters the complaint and mails you your summons, and you are immediately taxed some time or money to defend yourself. Would it not be more fair for Publicdefenderbot 2.0 to review the video footage, and inform Ticketbot 2.0 that you did not create a hazard to traffic by crossing at that time? Ticketbot could concede the point, and dismiss its complaint before even mailing the summons. Hurrah for technology that does not produce a gratuitous waste of human effort! The human lawyers only have to take over in situations where the obvious defenses don't overwhelm the obvious evidence. Or perhaps Speedcambot clocks your car going 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, transmits, "J'accuse! I gotcha, you bastard!", and your car replies, "Deepest apologies for the infraction, your majesty, but it's daytime, the pavement is dry, traffic is light, my tires and brakes are fine, and I can react in 15 ms." So Speedcambot says, "Fine. I'll allow it." and miraculously refrains from bothering the human. When a victim gets involved, you just have to add an Accountantbot to the mix. If the baker has a loaf stolen, Accountantbot asks, "How much would it cost to buy your right to press charges?" So baker says, "10 bucks?" Accountantbot quickly crunches the numbers, determines that $10 is less than the cost of a prosecution multiplied by the likelihood of going to trial, pays off the victim, and now Prosecutorbot and Publicdefenderbot work out a non-prosecution agreement wherein the bread thief has to attend a paid job training program for 40 hours, at $10/hour, then spend a minimum of 80 hours servicing the air conditioning units in the county datacenter, at $25/hour. The human lawyers go play golf, or racquetball, or something else that is so uselessly human.

by nkurz 10y ago

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

You're extremely naive. The US and its individual states have a litany of laws on the books. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday, gay people in particular. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed.

nkurz 10y ago
You're extremely naive. Likely, although my belief is only that selective enforcement of a "litany of laws" is worse than universal enforcement of that same overreach, and I don't disagree that it's practically impossible to live life or run a business 100% legally. I'm not questioning that there is ridiculous overreach, only suggesting that universal enforcement might be a solution. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday My usual example when the topic comes up is asking people whether they have been properly self-reporting and paying in-state sales tax on their out-of-state purchases as required by law in most states. I was impressed by one friend (a law professor) who was surprised to learn this, and now strives to be legally compliant. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed. Yes, but I think this is because we are relying so heavily on selective enforcement. It's certainly true that universal enforcement would be very difficult, and may have significant downsides, but I'd bet that if our legislators start losing their driving licenses for speeding offenses (or as you point out, if they, their gay friends, or family members were jailed for sodomy), the congressional gridlock would be broken and a lot of laws would swiftly be changed or repealed.
adrianN 10y ago
If every law were properly enforced, then this situation would likely change. In the current situation with selective enforcement you're generally okay until someone in power has a problem with you. Then you're fucked. This is worse than enforcing the laws as they are written in the books, imho.
lordnacho 10y ago
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. Cardinal Richelieu

bediger4000 10y ago

I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed. Most certainly - to exclude those in power from being affected by poorly written laws. See the US Congress, and it's choice to not enforce things like insider trading rules, equal opportunity and ADA compliance on itself.

icantdrive55 10y ago

"I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed." 1. We have way too many laws now, and they just keep piling up year, after year. I once heard in California, if you add up all new changes, and bylaws, we are enacting/changing 12,000 laws a year. (I don't have a citation. Just something I heard.) 2. I given up arguing over what laws are needed, and what just sound good. I would like to see the punishment of all laws (criminal, federal, local, etc.) tied to income. Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket. The poor man gets the current $500 ticket. I heard Switzerland is trying this? A poor man gets a $500 ticket; it might just be the last straw? A rich man gets the same ticket; he mentions it over dinner. In my world, high fees for Revenue, is not the way to tax. In many cases these fees seem unconstitutional, but who even cares about that old document anymore?

manarth 10y ago
Rich guy runs a stop sign, he gets a $5000 ticket. The poor man gets the current $500 ticket. I heard Switzerland is trying this? They've been trying this for a while - someone received a $290,000 speeding fine in 2010 [1]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm
dagw 10y ago
In Sweden many fines are defined in terms of wages instead of fixed amount. So the judge will just fine you (essentially) 45 days wages without having to worry about what that works out to be in in actual money.

kwhitefoot 10y ago

> I'm probably being naive, You certainly are.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I'd be more comfortable with automated prosecutions if automated defense were already one generation more sophisticated. So a camera catches you crossing a street outside of the designated times at a marked crosswalk. Ticketbot 1.0 automatically enters the complaint and mails you your summons, and you are immediately taxed some time or money to defend yourself. Would it not be more fair for Publicdefenderbot 2.0 to review the video footage, and inform Ticketbot 2.0 that you did not create a hazard to traffic by crossing at that time? Ticketbot could concede the point, and dismiss its complaint before even mailing the summons. Hurrah for technology that does not produce a gratuitous waste of human effort! The human lawyers only have to take over in situations where the obvious defenses don't overwhelm the obvious evidence. Or perhaps Speedcambot clocks your car going 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, transmits, "J'accuse! I gotcha, you bastard!", and your car replies, "Deepest apologies for the infraction, your majesty, but it's daytime, the pavement is dry, traffic is light, my tires and brakes are fine, and I can react in 15 ms." So Speedcambot says, "Fine. I'll allow it." and miraculously refrains from bothering the human. When a victim gets involved, you just have to add an Accountantbot to the mix. If the baker has a loaf stolen, Accountantbot asks, "How much would it cost to buy your right to press charges?" So baker says, "10 bucks?" Accountantbot quickly crunches the numbers, determines that $10 is less than the cost of a prosecution multiplied by the likelihood of going to trial, pays off the victim, and now Prosecutorbot and Publicdefenderbot work out a non-prosecution agreement wherein the bread thief has to attend a paid job training program for 40 hours, at $10/hour, then spend a minimum of 80 hours servicing the air conditioning units in the county datacenter, at $25/hour. The human lawyers go play golf, or racquetball, or something else that is so uselessly human.