Timeline for Why is the defendant presumed guilty in traffic court?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2021 at 18:49 | comment | added | Joshua | The police officer is not uninvolved. Too many bad tickets and his job is in jeopardy. | |
| Jul 11, 2021 at 12:11 | comment | added | tlewis3348 | You might be a "good person", but many aren't, and how is the court supposed to determine who's a "good person", and who isn't? | |
| Jul 11, 2021 at 11:44 | comment | added | Tim | @tlewis3348 I could, but I’m not likely to, because I a) am generally a good person and b) don’t want to go to prison for perjury. The requirement is “guilty behind reasonable doubt”. If my testimony alone meets that requirement, why would that be unjust? It would be more unjust, IMO, to require I have additional evidence when that might not be practicable. | |
| Jul 11, 2021 at 10:37 | comment | added | tlewis3348 | @Tim Because if you have no corroborating evidence for your accusation, you could accuse anyone of anything. | |
| Jul 11, 2021 at 10:29 | comment | added | Tim | @tlewis3348 why would it be unjust? If I see someone steal my bike, why is my testimony not enough for them to be punished? Or perhaps they pull a knife on me? There’s all sorts of things for which there is a lone witness. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | tlewis3348 | I might add that theft is different because there is multiple lines of witness possible. There's the presence of the stolen goods, the observation of eyewitness, the absence of a proof of purchase, security camera footage, etc. If a person accuses me of stealing something, and there's no further evidence of me doing that thing, then it would be unjust to convict that person of theft. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 10:45 | comment | added | phoog | @Schmuddi the logic underlying a US court's deference to a police officer's testimony is broadly similar, however, regardless of whether quotas or other factors render US officers more likely to abuse that privileged position. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 10:42 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling
|
| Jul 9, 2021 at 9:34 | comment | added | Schmuddi | The German perspective may indeed be different from the US point of view. The OP suspects that a traffic officer may falsify their testimony in order to meet a quota – that would be their motivation to tell something that is not the truth. I don't know how prevalent quotas are in the US, but they certainly don't exist (officially) in Germany. | |
| Jul 9, 2021 at 9:25 | history | answered | Martin Rosenau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |