[Prev][Index][Thread]

Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders



In Article <42kupv$b3o@zippy.cais.net>, elandau@cais3.cais.com (Eric Landau)
wrote:

>To say that when the evidence against you has been collected entirely by 
>mechanical means, with no human being involved, "all avenues available to 
>you had the violation been detected by an officer are still available" is 
>truly specious.  Can you cross-examine a camera?

    Sure, if you are a technician, trained in those systems. When it comes to
cross examination of a _person_ that technician is called a lawyer. If the
_accuser_ were a camera, I'd call in another type of specialist.

>Can a machine be required to answer your questions truthfully, under oath?

    Can it lie? Misinterpretation doesn't count. That would be the fault of
other _human_ components of the system.

>Can an electronic device be held in contempt of court, or prosecuted for
>perjury?  

    Since it can't lie, it can hardly perjure itself. And it cannot disobey.
The information may be used improperly, but that could go double if the 
_accuser_ were a person.

    The real crux of the complaints here are that people feel that there is
less opportunity to obfuscate and/or _get off_ somehow when they are
unequivically caught in the act by direct objective observation (the famous
tapes of the Rodney King beating aside). If people were being caught and
convicted for crimes they did not commit there would be a point here. What
people are really complaining about, though, is a restriction on their ability
to break certain laws with impunity. This is BS. If you disagree with the
_law_, work to _change the law_. Allowing an unpopular law to stand while
expending all of your energies in an effort to cripple the enforcement of that
law is just plain stupid, and its not the best way for a democracy to address
its problems.

        -- Joe


References: