Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a constitutional right for us to be able to confrot our accuser in a court of law? I’ve always thought it was, and if it isn’t, it should be. A thief or murderer is given at least the illusion of a fair trial infront of a jury of his/her peers. So why should traffic offenses be any different?
This frightens me.
Unfortunately, so does the journalism that brought it to my attention.
Instead of focusing on the lack of judicial resources (making it “not worth their while” for cops to show up in court, nevermind their lack of motivation to follow through in their part of the judicial process – do they actually believe in the viability of their accusation of a traffic violation if they can’t be bothered to show up and ensure it stands?) and the right we, as the accused have to a fair trial, the writer instead threw in some bullshit about photo radar, and forced a weak connection between the two.
I’m honestly not sure which makes me angrier.