The request becomes frivolous or worse when it is being done to clog the system for an unfair advantage or to outright falsify your evidence. Is this not the crux of the matter? The result, another imperfect system being proposed. This story is as old as the hills and repeats over and over, counter measures that negatively affect everyone because of abuse by a few. I wouldn't champion an abused right.
|
|
|
Attorney General's Public Consultation for Traffic Offences
- Thread starter iFly55
- Start date
The request becomes frivolous or worse when it is being done to clog the system for an unfair advantage or to outright falsify your evidence. Is this not the crux of the matter? The result, another imperfect system being proposed. This story is as old as the hills and repeats over and over, counter measures that negatively affect everyone because of abuse by a few. I wouldn't champion an abused right.
I am fine with this proposed online system as long as it is always an alternative to the current system (i.e. the current right to have your day in court - and to file an appeal to a higher court if the JP makes an error in law - is maintained).
The problem is that unless there is a healthy incentive to NOT have my day in court, I, personally, will ALWAYS choose to have my day in court.
A sufficient incentive for me, and I suggested as much in my email to them, would be that going through the online system applies the fine, but does not register a conviction and has no consequences that an insurance company could use against me.
Of course, the legal and insurance systems would want to register that conviction, which means they would likely only offer this alternative for minor charges (e.g. no-demerit-points speeding tickets) and you know what ... I'm fine with that, too - and said so in my email.
There is precedence for this situation in Ontario already on the books ... red-light camera tickets, and speed camera tickets (the laws for which were never revoked despite the system being no longer in use). And I pointed that out, too.
The problem is that unless there is a healthy incentive to NOT have my day in court, I, personally, will ALWAYS choose to have my day in court.
A sufficient incentive for me, and I suggested as much in my email to them, would be that going through the online system applies the fine, but does not register a conviction and has no consequences that an insurance company could use against me.
Of course, the legal and insurance systems would want to register that conviction, which means they would likely only offer this alternative for minor charges (e.g. no-demerit-points speeding tickets) and you know what ... I'm fine with that, too - and said so in my email.
There is precedence for this situation in Ontario already on the books ... red-light camera tickets, and speed camera tickets (the laws for which were never revoked despite the system being no longer in use). And I pointed that out, too.
Basically, if you have deep pockets you can speed all you want.
^ and that's why I can only see this being fair and viable for minor speeding infractions and the like.
You know, the no-demerit-points tickets that are basically for speeding up to roughly where our speed limits should be, compared to where they are ...
As far as I'm concerned, people can speed up to 15 km/h over our existing posted limits all they want. It's not like this would change anything ...
You know, the no-demerit-points tickets that are basically for speeding up to roughly where our speed limits should be, compared to where they are ...
As far as I'm concerned, people can speed up to 15 km/h over our existing posted limits all they want. It's not like this would change anything ...
Considering how hard it is to get a speeding ticket now (my white pickup must be invisible), a cash@carry system sounds like a grand idea. Until the ticket quota goes up to cover the cost of each officers shift, dry cleaning and gratuities.
Last edited:
Those of you who are in favour of this are aware that there are already possible penalties in place for abusing the process, right? How about we apply them, where appropriate? Wouldn't that do what you want?
Why don't you name those penalties? Aside from perjury, which is rarely prosecuted because proving a person knowingly lied rather than being honestly mistaken is so difficult, what is left?
Speed doesn't kill anymore I guess. Maybe they'll make it like tolls and give us transponders.
I didn't bother to list them because they are easily available on the Attorney General website.
At least the government always spends our money wisely.
Ummm Yeah. Basically you're right. The government is so screwed up financially that they are acting like a drug addict in his or her parents home. "Borrow", con, steal or sell off assets to pay for their habits.
Pimping is also an option. Hire a bunch of well meaning police officers and use them to collect money instead of protecting the public.
Golluk
Well-known member
Well, sent my comment in. Hopefully I'm not flagged as some political activist now 
rotest: .
"Hello,
I am writing to express my thoughts and concerns on the proposed method for handling provincial offenses. An AMP system as an optional addition, or first step, could be a useful method for resolving minor infractions. I do not feel however, that it should entirely replace the current system. The current system protects our rights of innocence until proven guilty, and allows an individual to defend oneself up to the full extent of our justice system if need be. The justice system should provide protection from both individuals, corporations, and government. Allowing the government to side step this process is a dangerous precedent. And I feel it has already gone too far, such as with the administrative penalties attached to HTA 172 violations.
Other reservations I have is the current AMPS workers are employed by the municipality, which benefits monetarily from the outcome. This would be a serious conflict of interest. If offenses are changed to administrative penalties, then one could pay their way to ignore them. If they do affect insurance, then the seriousness of the potential penalty should also take into account the potentially increased insurance costs, or potential lose of coverage. This could have serious affects on a persons lively hood if they must travel for work.
I have observed, and been a participant of the current process. The majority of cases were handled in a quick and efficient manner, and I felt it was a valuable experience. If improvements are to be explored, I believe it should be in the system we have currently. Justice should not be treated like a commercial service, prioritizing fast, cheap, and easy, if it is to be proper and accurate. It should enforce ramifications, and change to those who disregard the laws, and endanger themselves and others. Not function as a form of revenue generation.
And in all honesty, making arguments over the internet has rarely been a productive endeavor."
rotest: ."Hello,
I am writing to express my thoughts and concerns on the proposed method for handling provincial offenses. An AMP system as an optional addition, or first step, could be a useful method for resolving minor infractions. I do not feel however, that it should entirely replace the current system. The current system protects our rights of innocence until proven guilty, and allows an individual to defend oneself up to the full extent of our justice system if need be. The justice system should provide protection from both individuals, corporations, and government. Allowing the government to side step this process is a dangerous precedent. And I feel it has already gone too far, such as with the administrative penalties attached to HTA 172 violations.
Other reservations I have is the current AMPS workers are employed by the municipality, which benefits monetarily from the outcome. This would be a serious conflict of interest. If offenses are changed to administrative penalties, then one could pay their way to ignore them. If they do affect insurance, then the seriousness of the potential penalty should also take into account the potentially increased insurance costs, or potential lose of coverage. This could have serious affects on a persons lively hood if they must travel for work.
I have observed, and been a participant of the current process. The majority of cases were handled in a quick and efficient manner, and I felt it was a valuable experience. If improvements are to be explored, I believe it should be in the system we have currently. Justice should not be treated like a commercial service, prioritizing fast, cheap, and easy, if it is to be proper and accurate. It should enforce ramifications, and change to those who disregard the laws, and endanger themselves and others. Not function as a form of revenue generation.
And in all honesty, making arguments over the internet has rarely been a productive endeavor."
I was reviewing the A-G proposal and my paranoia set in. Even the quick comparison chart seemed biased.
Subtle word choices doing a sell job?
Evil "Paper based systems" vs. "Ontario's Vision" (Sounds lovely, like an enlightened moment)
POA gets you a fine. AMP gets you a penalty
The description of the POA system is lengthy implying a dragged out battle where the AMP is just a click and it's done.
The POA trial process list numerous officials ETC but the AMP system has an expert unbiased decision maker. Does that imply that JPs, prosecutors, are not expert decision makers, not unbiased?
POA the defendant attends in person. What a drag, having to present yourself in court to defend your rights. With the AMP system you could do it laying in bed or while at the bar having a beer with your GTAM legal team. Again the chart refers to the AMP system as unbiased.
The presentation chart is biased towards the AMP system so how can the AMP system be unbiased.
Subtle word choices doing a sell job?
Evil "Paper based systems" vs. "Ontario's Vision" (Sounds lovely, like an enlightened moment)
POA gets you a fine. AMP gets you a penalty
The description of the POA system is lengthy implying a dragged out battle where the AMP is just a click and it's done.
The POA trial process list numerous officials ETC but the AMP system has an expert unbiased decision maker. Does that imply that JPs, prosecutors, are not expert decision makers, not unbiased?
POA the defendant attends in person. What a drag, having to present yourself in court to defend your rights. With the AMP system you could do it laying in bed or while at the bar having a beer with your GTAM legal team. Again the chart refers to the AMP system as unbiased.
The presentation chart is biased towards the AMP system so how can the AMP system be unbiased.
Keeping speed limits artificially low as a revenue generation tactic is ALSO abuse of the system...if we had speed limits that made sense with people's behavior then the courts could NEVER be jacked up enough for 11.b walks because only people who are ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG would get charged.
I sent in my comments, mostly negative, to the link. My fear is that we are going to get a hosing down the line.
I wonder how many Ontarians are aware of this proposed change and how it could affect them. It's like trying to stay focused on an act in a three ring circus when all of the acts are clowns.
I wonder how many Ontarians are aware of this proposed change and how it could affect them. It's like trying to stay focused on an act in a three ring circus when all of the acts are clowns.
People are only starting to learn about it, now that consultations are closed.
DownUnder
Well-known member
Hey guys if everyone is killing and raping people we shouldnt have laws against it, make it only punishable if its genocide...
Why does no one in this day and age accept responsibility for their actions. There used to be a saying you do the crime you do the time, now everyone does the crime and then cries like a little ***** so they dont have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Speed limits artificially low LMAO. If the speed limits were 150 on every single road in the country you people would still speed and ***** when you get caught doing so.
Speed limit is 50, everyone is doing 70, speed limit goes up to 60, everyone is now doing 80, speed limit is 80, everyone is doing 110. It never stops.
Everyone thinks they are awesome drivers and can do 160 on the hwy safely while weaving through traffic...
Im glad a new system is coming in. Hopefully now **** drivers will start losing their lisences and the roads can become a little safer for everyone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
|
|
|
|
|