rough week

[trust]

It's not a lie, it shifts the burden of proof. Do you not have insurance increases in Canada or something? His insurance is already sky high because of his age/gender, plus he's AZN and everyone knows they suck at driving. (except the ones in fast and the furious tokyo drift they were badass) anyway it'd be financially irresponsible to just send in the fine and not go to court.

regardless of what you think about it, most judges are lenient to first offenders.

[Krazed]

Yes, because people don't make mistakes and should definitely face the worst possible sentence for minor obstructions? It's 100% impossible for a judge to let you off because you plead guilty. If it's written in the book, you recieve this sentence for this act, that's what you're given. However -- If you plead not guilty, speak with the judge/officer, they see you have no other infractions.. Why shouldn't you be allowed a second chance and a smaller sentence? Integrity? Honesty? Welcome to 2008.

[iago]

It's not a lie, it shifts the burden of proof. Do you not have insurance increases in Canada or something? His insurance is already sky high because of his age/gender, plus he's AZN and everyone knows they suck at driving. (except the ones in fast and the furious tokyo drift they were badass) anyway it'd be financially irresponsible to just send in the fine and not go to court.

regardless of what you think about it, most judges are lenient to first offenders.

Yes, we have insurance increases.

Like I said before, being encouraged to do it doesn't make it right.

Yes, because people don't make mistakes and should definitely face the worst possible sentence for minor obstructions? It's 100% impossible for a judge to let you off because you plead guilty. If it's written in the book, you recieve this sentence for this act, that's what you're given. However -- If you plead not guilty, speak with the judge/officer, they see you have no other infractions.. Why shouldn't you be allowed a second chance and a smaller sentence? Integrity? Honesty? Welcome to 2008.

If the law is that bad, then they should change is so that the punishment fits the crime.

It's depressing that people think that integrity and honesty are dead, though. That's why I think it's even more important to be honest -- to set a good example. Nobody else is doing it.

[trust]

It's not that the punishments are too harsh (I think here it's $5 for each mile over up until 20 miles over, because 20mi is reckless driving and that's a lot worse.) You also pay court fees, which is another $70 or so. That alone isn't that harsh, because figure if you're 14 over that's $140 fine. It's a lot of money to just give away, but it's not excessive. The reasoning for judges reducing the charge is to avoid the insurance spike. I know my parents pay, just for me, the price it costs both of them to be insured. I'm an 18 year old male, so a speeding ticket is something that could fuck up the cost of insurance even more.

[iago]

That sounds reasonable. I guess the solution is..... don't speed?

[trust]

That sounds reasonable. I guess the solution is..... don't speed?

True, but sometimes it's done completely on accident (as in his case) and you just happen to get pulled over before you realize it.

[Quik]

i was thinking about pleading no contest then go to traffic school to get the ticket off my insurance and my records. it should cost about $200 in total?

That's probably the best option. In California, if you complete the traffic school, it stays off your record and insurance doesn't find out about it. It's the guaranteed way to save you money.. the other ways are just hoping the cop doesn't show, or can't prove anything, or the judge is nice. If you try to play the system and fail, it's doubtful you'll have the option to go back and say "ok I fucked up, now can I have traffic school and save myself at least some money?" -- doesn't really work like that.

[warz]

you might as well just cry when a cop pulls you over

[rabbit]

You're talking like abusing the system is a bad thing  . Always look out for #1(Me).

Abusing the system is using incorrectly ... working in the system is different.

The system HAS that avenue for people to take, if it was an abuse it wouldn't exist.

Saying you aren't guilty when you know you're guilty is a lie, period, whether or not it's a valid avenue. It'd be against my ethics to do that unless I believed there was a good reason.

A plea of "not-guilty", in the legal stance, means "I doubt you have enough evidence to prove I did anything", not "I didn't do it".


This morning, I actually read an interesting quote about this in the code of ethics I have to agree to:

There is an interesting relationship between law and ethics. Most often, laws are based on ethics and are put in place to ensure that ohers act in an ethical way. However, laws do not apply to everything -- that's where ethics should kick in. Some things may not be illegal, but that does not necessarily mean they are ethical.

That sort of applies to the situation.

That's a pretty good quote

[CrAz3D]

You're talking like abusing the system is a bad thing  . Always look out for #1(Me).

Abusing the system is using incorrectly ... working in the system is different.

The system HAS that avenue for people to take, if it was an abuse it wouldn't exist.

Saying you aren't guilty when you know you're guilty is a lie, period, whether or not it's a valid avenue. It'd be against my ethics to do that unless I believed there was a good reason.

A plea of "not-guilty", in the legal stance, means "I doubt you have enough evidence to prove I did anything", not "I didn't do it".

Saying "not guilty" doesn't even go that far.