4 ms·

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court > A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predeter

by oooyay 2y ago

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court > A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. Ref: https://www.cnet.com/science/tickets-issued-due-to-red-light-cameras-are-illegal-says-florida-court/ https://www.cnet.com/science/tickets-issued-due-to-red-light... > The City is not authorized to delegate police power by entering into a contract that allows a private vendor to screen data and decide whether a violation has occurred before sending that data to a traffic infraction enforcement officer to use as the basis for authorizing a citation. This is generally how all of them work and that is why you go to civil court to fight a civil penalty if you appeal the ticket. That is a de facto kangaroo court when the consequence can overlap with drivers license revocation for a civil matter.

gruez 2y ago
>This is generally how all of them work Source? At least in my jurisdiction they're reviewed by police officers. A recent story[1] about red light cameras work in a town in Florida also describes something similar. Moreover, while delegating ticket issuing powers to a private company might come with procedural issues and raise questions about impartiality, it's hardly enough reason to call it a "kangaroo court" if you're able to dispute it in court. That's the case for both my local jurisdiction and the florida town mentioned in the story. That's not to say that there aren't any red light camera kangaroo courts out there, or even that most of them aren't, but there's no reason why red light cameras are "kangaroo courts" in and of themselves. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910776
- oooyay 2y ago
  I would suggest you experience the process. Go run an automated red light and see how it works, all the way up to trying to appeal before you boldly claim the process works and is fair. There is now usually a police officer in the mix, but they're not actually doing much if anything other than clicking a button. They just believe whatever the machine and video paints and use the existing assumptions about car owners being responsible over drivers.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >There is now usually a police officer in the mix, but they're not actually doing much if anything other than clicking a button. They just believe whatever the machine and video paints and use the existing assumptions about car owners being responsible over drivers. Which part do you think is unfair? The police/courts blindly trusting the machine, or the owner being fined rather than the driver?
    - oooyay 2y ago
      por que no los dos? The whole shabang is a big, abrupt departure from how we enforce traffic laws. Normally you had the option to face your accuser, there was room for interpretation and discernment, and the law was sufficiently nuanced.

by oooyay 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

>This is generally how all of them work Source? At least in my jurisdiction they're reviewed by police officers. A recent story[1] about red light cameras work in a town in Florida also describes something similar. Moreover, while delegating ticket issuing powers to a private company might come with procedural issues and raise questions about impartiality, it's hardly enough reason to call it a "kangaroo court" if you're able to dispute it in court. That's the case for both my local jurisdiction and the florida town mentioned in the story. That's not to say that there aren't any red light camera kangaroo courts out there, or even that most of them aren't, but there's no reason why red light cameras are "kangaroo courts" in and of themselves. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910776

oooyay 2y ago
I would suggest you experience the process. Go run an automated red light and see how it works, all the way up to trying to appeal before you boldly claim the process works and is fair. There is now usually a police officer in the mix, but they're not actually doing much if anything other than clicking a button. They just believe whatever the machine and video paints and use the existing assumptions about car owners being responsible over drivers.
- gruez 2y ago
  >There is now usually a police officer in the mix, but they're not actually doing much if anything other than clicking a button. They just believe whatever the machine and video paints and use the existing assumptions about car owners being responsible over drivers. Which part do you think is unfair? The police/courts blindly trusting the machine, or the owner being fined rather than the driver?
  - oooyay 2y ago
    por que no los dos? The whole shabang is a big, abrupt departure from how we enforce traffic laws. Normally you had the option to face your accuser, there was room for interpretation and discernment, and the law was sufficiently nuanced.