I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think the article that IGB produced is pretty good evidence otherwise.
I have never pretended to speak for other states. The article talks about communities that are raising fines in order to enhance revenues. In some states, the local government gets to keep a larger share of the revenue, this is nto the case in CA. It goes to the state and then some small part comes back down ... except in tough times - about one in 6 years or so - when the state withholds all or some of it.
Will fees, fines and assessments rise in CA as a result of the budget crunch? Probably. Just about everything will go up. Heck my city raised fees on everything last year ... of course, they hadn't changed in 20 years before that, so it was about time to change, but they did go up.
Who said anything about guilty pleas? I'm talking illegal convictions in court.
I suppose you mean that a "guilty" decision handed down by a traffic court judge or pro tem is an "illegal conviction"? Well, legally, it isn't. Sorry. You can certainly argue that the system seems stacked against the defendant, but it is what it is. If you want to discuss Pollyana solutions, then start a lobbying group and figure out how to change it. I'm not really sure there is an effective way to change the system, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
You are comparing Gov't to private industry... that is not a reasonable comparison. I guess I did it to when I made a reference to profit... my bad.
When you said "profit", yes, that's what it brought to mind. Hence my "net vs. gross" query.
Gov't does not work for profit. They simply grow to meet the amount of revenue.
Much of the time, yes. Sometimes, no. In some cases they expand only to the point that is necessary. But, as the budgetary system used by most government entities discourages cost cutting by penalizing departments that do NOT spend their budget, it is a fault of the local, state, and federal budgetary systems. In one city I used to work in, they decided that a department would receive their previous budgeted dollars plus 10% of their revenue savings as a bonus in the next fiscal year's budget if they ended the previous fiscal year with a surplus. It wasn't much, but it effectively said to the departments, 'if you don't spend it, we will not penalize you.'
The current system penalizes savings by implying the department (be it roads, accounting, I.T., whatever) had too much money in the first place, ergo the department heads spend their budget amount so they can ask for more next year.
So, when a whole list of Gov't beaurocracies must be fed to support the ticket machine, your "fees" simply become a tax by other means.
They provide some small compensation for the costs, sure. Of course, it's not in the "billions" of dollars in any event. I have read that the fines and associated fees are in excess of a billion dollars, but the costs for the associated operations far exceeds that revenue so it is hardly a "profit" making venture.
The reason prosecuting attorneys are not required to be in court is economic costs. It is an indisputed fact. It certainly isn't to benefit the public.
Sure. It saves money, and there is no law that requires them to be there. Additionally, there is no law that requires a sitting judge actually hear traffic cases. A judge 'pro tem' can be assigned. There are a number of cost saving measures instituted to make the system less expensive. The general public would never stand for the raise in taxes to pay for the court system that would be required otherwise ... and they would also balk at the huge rise in fees and fines that would have to be assessed to help compensate for such an expansion of the traffic court system.
Just because you don't openly state that a quota is in place, does not mean that one doesn't exist. A cop who doesn't "produce" will recieve a poor performance appraisal... just as a department. That is simply quota by another name.
I agree. Variable number "X" is still a number that is expected to be achieved. That is why when a "quota" system of any kind is introduced, they are often challenged from both within and without. In CA several agencies have had these number systems for evaluations, and the employee unions have been responsible for getting rid of them. This is why employee evaluations have tended to move away from numbers based ratings systems to a more "performance" or "activity" based system. It evaluates the employee based upon his activity, and not necessarily upon his numbers of citations or arrests. So, an officer that might make 20 traffic stops in a month doesn't necessarily have to write 20 citations - he could write three or four, or whatever. if he doesn't write ANY, then there might be a problem - there could be a legal issue there if/when he does write one, but this is a different topic.
My agency writes about one citation per 8 stops. Until 7 years ago, we could not track the number of stops an officer made, only the number of citations he wrote. I suspect that this is where the numbers from citations and arrests came from - they were figures that could be tracked. It is still a difficult thing, because in a perfect world with no crime, there would no stats at all ... by the system still used to evaluate performance in some agencies, that would mean all the officers in such an agency would be rated "unacceptable" for suppressing all crime.
What makes you think I haven't? (by the way, that is a pretty apathetic response coming from a public servant).
Sorry. I just figured that if you want to change the system, that is the way to do it. Whining to me about it doesn't change anything - I didn't MAKE the law, and have no way to modify it aside from doing the same way you do.
Why you would not want to punish traffic offenders is beyond me. Why you would prefer that all of us pay for the few that commit traffic violations is also logic that escapes me. I would prefer it if the offenders pay their own way. I know that isn't fiscally possible because most the people we deal with have limited funds, but I don't like to see my taxes go up for any reason.
But I prefer to protest the ticket industry by challenging the illegality of the State's actions in court... and showing other people that their rights may be being infringed by a court system run amok.
Fine. Go out and rack up a few tickets and hire your lawyers. You have the right to do that.
- Carl
