Why are tickets always being adjusted?

**Buddhacide** · 08-09-2011, 02:20 PM

I'm just curious, it seems like traffic violations and/or penalties are never wholly accurate. A person gets pulled over going 153, and asks to plead it down to 130, or whatever. Cops routinely reduce the speed of drivers on tickets, for what, a courtesy? As leverage to assure they dont fight the ticket? It just seems so imprecise and makeshift. Is there some sort of legal precedent or rule that grounds this sort of process, or is it just a wonky system?

Dont get me wrong, its nice to have things tweaked in your favor, but makes the laws too unstable IMO. If a person is proven to have gone 153 in a 100 zone, and the penalty is fine x, shouldnt they just get fine x? Whats with the "make believe"? Shouldnt it simply be a matter of proving the offence - flat out?

**jeffjones** · 08-09-2011, 02:27 PM

I think it is to "scare " people into paying it instead of taking it to court. Because that will save time and money for people that seriously need to use the court systems.
Like you don't see cops charging people criminally with a smaller offense when they get arrested. Why?, my guess is because they are already going to court, but if you plea guilty and not waste the courts time by going through with the trial they will reduce your charge there as well.

**turbodish** · 08-09-2011, 02:27 PM

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc...009onca643.pdf

[57] Some have expressed concern about the propriety of this practice. Likely it was this concern that prompted the Chief Justice of Ontario to grant leave to appeal to this court. In oral argument, the Regional Municipality of York said that it is less interested in the result of Mr. Winlow’s case than in obtaining guidance from this court on the practice.

[58] As a general conclusion, I see nothing inherently unfair about the practice itself. It seems to me that it seeks to achieve, or at least balance, two laudable objectives, both of which are in the public interest: to provide offending drivers with an incentive to settle out of court, thus disposing of many speeding charges quickly and efficiently; and to ensure that drivers who commit speeding offences are convicted at the actual rate of speed over the speed limit that they drive, thus promoting both specific and general deterrence.

[59] The first objective is triggered when a police officer exercises discretion to charge at a reduced rate of speed over the limit. The second objective is triggered when the prosecutor asks for an amendment of the charge to conform to the evidence disclosed at trial.

**Rob MacLennan** · 08-09-2011, 02:31 PM

"Plea bargaining" is the short answer. It speeds things up by having both parties come to an agreement, prior to getting up in front of a JP. Without it, the system would be grossly overloaded. The charge is the same; speeding. Only the magnitude of the offence is changed, thereby effecting the number of points assessed and the monetary fine imposed.

**Buddhacide** · 08-09-2011, 03:56 PM

Good answers, thanks. I guess maybe there is some implicit practicalty. It just seems hoaky to me. The law should be fixed imo, but then again I'm not an overburdened legal system....

Edit: Thanks for that link turbodish. That pretty much hit the nail on the head.

**Platinum Cycle** · 08-15-2011, 09:41 PM

It sounds like an unequal application of the law.

Why did Dan Akroyd get a warning for doing 70 on a 50km/h. He can surely afford to pay the fine. Would I get the same warning? Would my ticket be reduced? Would I get the full ticket of 70 in a 50?

Who kmows?

Does this kind of kangaroo law enforcement extend to other things?

If I rob a 7 11 store will I get a warning, will I get a ticket for jay walking instead?

I couldn't agree with the OP more. That's why it's my civic duty to fight every speeding ticket and tie up the courts as much as possible with frivilous trials.

**Rob MacLennan** · 08-16-2011, 06:35 AM

I've been let go, with a warning, for 70 in a 50. I'm no actor, nor do I own a winery.

It isn't your civic duty to clog the courts; it's your right to face your accusers. There is a very large gulf worth of difference, between the two.

**ddusseld** · 08-16-2011, 07:46 AM

Your post falls under the heading " Life is not fair "....

I do however believe that a police officer should have a certain amount of discretion while making a charge. Some times a warning is all that is needed.

Regarding the whole robbing a store point. The "life is not fair" part will kick in not when you are charged but at trial depending on how much money you have to hire the best lawyers.....

Originally Posted by Platinum Cycle

It sounds like an unequal application of the law.

Why did Dan Akroyd get a warning for doing 70 on a 50km/h. He can surely afford to pay the fine. Would I get the same warning? Would my ticket be reduced? Would I get the full ticket of 70 in a 50?

Who kmows?

Does this kind of kangaroo law enforcement extend to other things?

If I rob a 7 11 store will I get a warning, will I get a ticket for jay walking instead?

I couldn't agree with the OP more. That's why it's my civic duty to fight every speeding ticket and tie up the courts as much as possible with frivilous trials.