View Full Version : The Law is an ass
doreenhedgehog
16-Feb-05, 18:19
Just to sum up come peoples opinion on the law in this country, mine included, there was a perfect example on todays news.
Man gets done for speeding, clocked at 134mph, goes to court, and convinces them that his car won't do 134mph, so the speedgun must have neen faulty. Verdict not proven, and walks away an 'innocent' man in the eyes of the law (and a few on here). Now are we to assume that the speedgun was out by around 60mph or was he actually doing about 120 or something. I hardly think so!
Was he breaking the speedlimit? Yes
Is he a lunatic who has no regard for his or anyone elses safety? Probably
Should he have a lengthy ban/ even jail sentence? Yes
Is he 'innocent' in the eyes of the people who have 'common sense'? No
Is he 'innocent' in the eyes of the law? Yes
Now common sense would say that the judge/sheriff would ask an independent expert to check out the speedgun to see how far out it is reading and make a judgement based on that. However common sense doesn't come into the equation does it?
Next some poor guy/girl gets done at 71mph on the same stretch of road (hypothetically - I am assuming it was a speed limit of 60mph but it is irrelevant) and loses their license under the totting up procedure. Guy who was caught doing a killer speed is still driving, but makes sure his snooper is working/fitted next time.
Even jjc knows the guy is guilty!
What if the speedgun WAS faulty, What if he WASNT speeding? What if he got a lengthy jail sentence or ban and the speedgun wasnt working properly.
If there is "reasonable doubt" then its right that someone should be acquitted. I am sure that he didnt stand up and say "my car cant go that fast" and the judge said "oh ok off you go then".
Ill say it again Doreen
Better a guilty man goes free than an innocent man is jailed for a crime he didnt commit.
doreenhedgehog
16-Feb-05, 19:18
My point is 134 mph!!! If he was 10mph over the limit fair enough, but 134mph!!
Think about it for goodness sake! If the gun was reading 25% out of calibration (which is very, very, very unlikely) he's still be well over the ton!
What I'm saying is - common sense would tell anybody that if the speedgun said 134mph, there's an ever so slight chance he was doing just a tad over 60 or 70.
What you are saying is that the law is right to let him go just because the figure wasn't 100% accurate even though every human being alive knows it was still an insanely high speed? Without checking the device out?
It is wrong, and sums up our legal system, which is not about right or wrong, it's about who your lawyer is.
Doreen, common sense isn't understood by idealists or by judges, jury people or solicitors, everything is black and white, guilty or not guilty.
Even jjc knows the guy is guilty!
Doreen,
Touched though I am that you are using me as some kind of yard-stick, I’d ask that you don’t make assumptions about what I do and do not believe… particularly when you are so far from the mark.
Isn't it 'innocent until proven guilty?'
Even if he was going over the limit, unless the police can actually prove it, then there is no case to answer. If the reading is out, then it's not working correctly and the prosecution haven't a leg to stand on.
You can't say, "well we only think it's a bit broken so put him to jail!"
I bet all their speed machines are regularly tested after this.
~~Tides~~
16-Feb-05, 23:25
I dont see how they say these speed cameras are so unreliable. Dont they test them:
Get a car to drive at a certain speed down a test track and see if it measures it correctly. Simple
It was probably 5 minutes out of the calibration date...one minute you're illegal, next minute your legal.
Doreen
I dont know!!! Thats the point.
How do YOU know? Ill tell you - you assume.... you assume on balance of probability. If you asked me on balance of probability i would say that he was probably going far too fast but is "on balance of probability" good enough to convict someone of a crime? Is it enough to base a legal system on?
The answer is that balance of probability is NOT ENOUGH. If the gun was faulty it was faulty that makes all the convictions based on it whether at 134mph or at 65mph unsafe because the equipment cant be relied upon.
In the same way as in Angela Cannings case the doubts over the expert evidence made all the convictions based on that evidence unsafe and not to be relied upon.
Whatever we feel about speeding drivers, infant deaths and murder convictions we HAVE to have faith that if we come up against the law we are treated FAIRLY and receive a FAIR trial. If we find that some equipment has failed and is incorrectly giving the wrong information or that some policeman has falsified evidence, or that something was done incorrectly then we should expect that will not be allowed as evidence. This is not to protect the Guilty it is to protect the innocent. Dont you get that?
Lets turn the tables here
You are driving along at 55mph in a 60mph zone. You know this cos you never speed and you know that you checked your speed two minutes before. You drive past a policeofficer with a gun and then a week or so later you get a ticket and it says you were doing 70mph. Is it fair that you should be charged? Dont you EXPECT the gun to be accurate, if it wasnt wouldnt you expect the charges to be dropped. Would you expect that it would be done on your say so? .... "but i never speed officer" and " but i know i was doing 55mph m'lud" Nope ...you would check the gun find it faulty and expect the charges dropped which is exactly what this person did. Whoever he/she is they know that their car is not able to do 135mph - they very likely PROVED this and PROVED the gun was faulty. If the gun was wrong they cannot be convicted because the evidence is not available to show what speed they were doing.
Rheghead,
That makes no sense. Try again. :roll:
The answer is that balance of probability is NOT ENOUGH.
Sorry, but you are wrong there. Reasonable doubt is all about probability. No proof is absolute, and all truth is based on faith.
doreenhedgehog
16-Feb-05, 23:51
Once again the slower ones amongst us, if you pardon the pun, have missed the whole point.
Okay maybe the camera was reading 100% out of calibration - does that make you feel better? Read the point again - someone could have calibrated the machine to see if it was 1 or 2 or maybe even at a push, 5 percent out or 90. It wouldn't be a difficult thing to do. However the sheriff probably had a round of golf organised for the afternoon. The law is an ass. Fact.
Squidge - Your lovely little example sums up exactly my point, and I thank you for that. I think you are saying you agree, but your pride and principles won't allow you to.
:D
Squidge - Your lovely little example sums up exactly my point, and I thank you for that. I think you are saying you agree, but your pride and principles won't allow you to.
:D
Umm, Doreen? Methinks you're misinterpreting squidge. It seems to be becoming a slight habit. Do you really think that people just can't have a different viewpoint to your own?
doreenhedgehog
16-Feb-05, 23:56
Touched though I am that you are using me as some kind of yard-stick, I’d ask that you don’t make assumptions about what I do and do not believe… particularly when you are so far from the mark.
But I can, in just the same way as you make assumptions that I am not worthy of an opinion on anything unless I have a solicitor at my side with reams of 'facts' to back it up, or a spare few hours to trawl through boredom on google. I can make any assumptions I wish about you. Just like you have made assumptions about me based on your extreme left wing views.
And better still - You know I am right on this one. ;)
Doreen, I beg to differ, the only way you could get a conviction on the speeding offence with an out of calibration speed gun would be to test it against some standards immediatly after the driver was caught. Drifts in calibration are often time dependent, so any checks after a considerable length of time can bear no proof of guilt.
You are right in theory but not in practice.
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 00:00
Doreen, I beg to differ, the only way you could get a conviction on the speeding offence with an out of calibration speed gun would be to test it against some standards immediatly after the driver was caught. Drifts in calibration are often time dependent, so any checks after a considerable length of time can bear no proof of guilt.
You are right in theory but not in practice.
Thanks for clearing that up - it possibly strengthens my arguement though does it?
Possibly, but you have to appreciate that the time between the offence and the appearance in court is considerable. And the court was unable physically to retrospectively calibrate the instrument.
Frustrating though it may seem...
And better still - You know I am right on this one. ;)
Aha! You really do believe that people can't possibly disagree with you. Do you really think that people absolutely must inwardly agree with you even if their public opinion is diametrically opposed to your own?
And if so, why do you have such a problem with opposing viewpoints?
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 00:07
In my experience of instrumention and measuring equipment, it would be total fantasy to think that any machine could be around 90% out without being run over by the speeding vehicle :D
In my experience as a chemist it is possible to see drifts in caibration of over 90% especially if its been calibrated against old or wrong standards.
Don't forget all machines are like us, Garbage in, garbage out.
But I can in just the same way as you make assumptions that I am not worthy of an opinion on anything unless I have a solicitor at my side with reams of 'facts' to back it up, or a spare few hours to trawl through boredom on google. I can make any assumptions I wish about you. Just like you have made assumptions about me based on your extreme left wing views.
:lol:
Oh Doreen…
[lol]
...‘extreme left wing views’…
:lol:
That’s a good one!
:roll:
I realise that you are trying to insult me but I really don’t have a problem with being considered a ‘left winger’ and if you really think that the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is ‘extreme’ perhaps you should move somewhere more suited to your idea of utopia – Burundi perhaps? I hear they’re burning thieves alive these days.
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 00:26
I realise that you are trying to insult me but I really don’t have a problem with being considered a ‘left winger’ and if you really think that the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is ‘extreme’ perhaps you should move somewhere more suited to your idea of utopia – Burundi perhaps? I hear they’re burning thieves alive these days.
Sounds great!! Now, where the hell is it? Is it over e' Ord?
"One crucial difference between Civil and Criminal law is that the 'burden of proof' is lower in a civil case. A criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt.' A civil case only has to be proved on the 'balance of probabilities,' i.e. it is 'likely' that the defendant is guilty".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/legal/the_law/civil.shtml
Just to make my point clear
Proving a criminal case requires that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt so...
The fact that the gun was shown to be incorrect meant that there was reasonable doubt that the evidence provided was accurate. Guit could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt where the evidence was from this radar gun whether they were driving at 10mph or 210mph because it was faulty. He must be acquitted whatever we think the "probability" is. Therefore it is right that the man in the first post was found not proven because that is exactly what happened
Clear enough for you Doreen?
Don't forget all machines are like us, Garbage in, garbage out.
Too True. My computer spouts it frequently.
134mph?? What car was it?? According to the specs, my fiesty can do 100mph, so it wouldn't have to be a big car. Although a V70 can do 140+... and the S60R is limited to 155mph.
I remember a story that went around when I was a kid. I can't remember the details, but it stuck with me and seems kind-of relevant here…
There was a guy caught speeding just north of Inverness. The police said they clocked him doing around the 120mph mark and duly summoned him to court. He produced an expert who testified that in order for the police to catch up with him at the place they did they would have had to have reached in the region of 220mph themselves.
I don't know how reliable the story is (I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't very reliable at all ;)) and I'm pretty sure that the figures aren't the same as the ones I was told, but you get the idea.
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 15:33
I don't know how reliable the story is (I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't very reliable at all ;)) and I'm pretty sure that the figures aren't the same as the ones I was told, but you get the idea.
You never researched it jjc :eek:
Doesn't matter it's a good story anyway. That's the kind of lawyer you'd want in your corner if you were looking to get out on a technicality! ;)
The car in question was a imported Subaru Impreza which was limited to 107 mph....
However, you wouldn't bother importing a car like that if it could only do 107mph....
So you chip it, that then de-regulates the car, so my guess is, he probably "was" doing 134mph, sees the police clock him, goes home removes the chip (10 min job) then when the speeding ticket comes through, he takes the car to the Impreza garage and the guy there puts the car on a rolling road, Oh...it only does 107mph.....what a surprise
So the police speed camera "MUST" be wrong, I'm sure it wasn't, but seeing as the police now can't prove either way, if the car WAS doing 134 mph or not, the case has to be thrown out of court.
However, as a driver of a Subaru, the police will now have him marked, and he would be better off just selling the car, cause they will make his life hell I'm sure.
Still I find the whole thing fairly amusing really, the police must know thats what he has done, they just can't prove it.
Kate
So here we are again… the prosecution, with their ability to call any witnesses necessary, were unable to prove that this man chipped his car or that the ProLaser III that clocked him at 132mph was working correctly and accurately calibrated.
But still you know better than the courts, eh? You know that this 34-year-old is such a speed-freak that he not only imported an Impreza to drive it fast, but he wanted to drive it so fast that he chipped his car because 107mph is just not quite fast enough. Of course, you also know more about Imprezas than the independent expert who tested the car and testified, under oath, that the electronic speed-limiter had never been deactivated.
Perhaps you are a Subaru mechanic. Perhaps, by some quirk of fate, you are also the genius behind the ProLaser III. But that you can also tell us all with certainty just what this man did after seeing the police flash by in a 132mph blur is simply astounding.
Perhaps, as you can read minds, you could explain something for me? Why, if the police are so certain that there is no problem with the ProLaser III, did a spokesman for the Northern Constabulary say that this case should be brought to the attention of the American manufacturers?
Oh for goodness sake JJC, Get off you soap box.....
I was taking the mickey about the whole thing...........I have NO idea what speed the guy was doing, and I don't really care, I was just pointing out one possible case that MIGHT have happened, he MIGHT have been going at 70 mph for all I know.
I don't know if the guy chipped his car or not, neither would the police and neither would an independant car tester.
I never said the guy DID import it to drive it fast, I know nothing about the man in question, why he imported this car I'll never know. And I also never said that he did chip it, I was pointing out that that was ONE possibility. And one that was very difficult to prove......thats why I was taking the mickey.
Perhaps the Police should call in all their lasers and have them checked out, after all, calibrations can be wrong.
However, if the guy had been sensible he should have put radar jammers on the car as well, then they wouldnot have even got a reading.........maybe next time eh?????
Or maybe he could get himself a radar detector, not the road angles that loads of folk have nowadays, but the ones that show up the laser guns, illegal to have on in your car, but no illegal to have IN your car, only take seconds to pull out a lead,
Ach well, I guess we'll never know how, just how fast he was going.................
Kate
The car in question was a imported Subaru Impreza which was limited to 107 mph....
However, you wouldn't bother importing a car like that if it could only do 107mph....
So you chip it, that then de-regulates the car, so my guess is, he probably "was" doing 134mph, sees the police clock him, goes home removes the chip (10 min job) then when the speeding ticket comes through, he takes the car to the Impreza garage and the guy there puts the car on a rolling road, Oh...it only does 107mph.....what a surprise
So the police speed camera "MUST" be wrong, I'm sure it wasn't, but seeing as the police now can't prove either way, if the car WAS doing 134 mph or not, the case has to be thrown out of court.
However, as a driver of a Subaru, the police will now have him marked, and he would be better off just selling the car, cause they will make his life hell I'm sure.
Still I find the whole thing fairly amusing really, the police must know thats what he has done, they just can't prove it.
Kate
Can't really see anyone of sound mind not agreeing that this is what probably happened. Interesting that a "not proven" verdict was given - this would tend to lend support to this.
But - I don't believe that radar detectors are illegal to use in the UK, although the government is bringing in specific legislation to ban them, which will leave us with GPS-based ones only (which apparently - are not possible to ban)
The radar detectors used to be illegal, but that was due to improper application of the Wireless and Telegraphy act of some bygone age.
Caledonia
19-Feb-05, 04:06
Two officers judging that speed was excessive would be enough to secure a conviction, if this was not contrary to guidelines laid out by the constabulary themselves.
No speed guns required.
I don't know if they could fall back on this option having gone forward based on flawed evidence though.
;)
~~Tides~~
19-Feb-05, 12:25
Yes,
Anyone can make a rough estimation of the speed a car is going, certainly if it is over 100mph.
Why cant people just use common sense?
I think what caledonia was saying was that cops have a legal ability to judge speed, something that we cannot do. Similiarly, cops can tell if someone is drunk or not, we can't do that either...
Caledonia
20-Feb-05, 14:59
That is right Reghead,
I can't remember the law exactly, but it comes down to the fact that a policeman is considered an 'expert witness' or something, so theoretically even a single policeman's testimony is enough to secure a conviction, in the absence of an alabi or evidence to the contrary.
There are a few cases I have heard where a speeding charge has been upheld on this basis, but I think it is against the guidelines the police adhere to.
Makes sense, it is fairly obvious that there would be an awful lot of appeals and a lot more wasted time administering cases like these.
;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.