OREGON bill removes traffic ticket appeals

OREGON bill removes traffic ticket appeals

www.kgw.com

So basically what I am getting is that they are making it so you cant appeal the ticket that you get and have it lowered. Not sure if it also applies to fighting the ticket and saying the ticket is unjustified completely. If so, that makes the cop your ticket writer, judge and jury. Not only that it makes it so that all class b tickets are 260 dollars and you have to pay. Granted that's low compared to some tickets but still high.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Most of us know cops are irrational, want to claim their superiority over an individual in any circumstance. This is what they are trained to do. They are Not trained on the law at least nothing like a lawyer or judge undergoes. Obviously it is only to make more money from the tax payers. How can this even be allowed. Anyone else have any comments?

www.kgw.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

MY aunt lives in Portland, has so for the past 16 years or so. Ive never beent hier, but saw pics. it looks very preppy and laid back thier. Im suprised a state like oregon would do soemthing like this. Makes more sense for a place like NYC or i dunno florida to do something like this..take your legal rights away form you. in most cases, cops dont even show up to contest the ticket anyways..probably because he knows he messed up too, or has other active duty things to do. roomate of mine, in his teens always got tickets, int he mid 90's most times cop never shwoed up..judge dismissed the ticket.
sounds too me like its a scam to make sure YOU pay the city*

reply to post by thegoods724


No, you can still fight the ticket. But it does take away the right to ask a judge to give you a break on the fine because you have a good record. Now, you would either have to fight the ticket on the merits or pay the full fine. Everyone should just go in, plead not guilty, demand a jury trial and really have the trial. That will completely gridlock Oregon's Municipal Court system. Let's say a cop writes 10 tickets a day. He will have to appear at the initial court date, the pretial conference, a day at the prosecutor's office to prepare, and for the trial so he has tied up 50 days of his time by writing those tickets for 1 day. Soon, he's going to run out of days. It is not sustainable. Jorors will have to be paid every day and it will bankrupt the system. The courts won't be able to do any other business.

So your saying that because you haven't been caught speeding all those years and they finally nab ya you should get a reduced rate?

Uh huh

Take the jury trial option. This stuff is getting out of hand.

A lot of people misunderstand, that there is a vast difference between, law, and justice. To bad the cops, or the instruments of the elite, fail to recognize that?

reply to post by zorgon

Zorgon - come one man, you are assuming people who've had clean driving records for decades have been speeding the whole time? That's unfair. If you have a good record and have a bad day, why shouldn't judges be allowed to use their own discretion ("judgment") to set the fine at a level they feel is appropriate?

Then why have a judge at all? Why not just have guilty party slide a credit/debit card in the Police Car's cash register? Heck, they could even leave a space for you to leave a tip/gratuity for the cop!!

This seems a case of "use it, or lose it" to me. If 80% (given the stats. quoted) are not utilizing this option of sending in a letter of explanation and requesting lower fee, then this does seem like an appropriate feature to examine and potentially nix when the budget is tight (anyone bother to check the OR state deficit?) The Judge's time is money, as well as in short supply. Cuts are being made all over the place, necessarily so. Having said that, OR has a history of nickel and diming the people and this is another in a long list of such proposals, many of which are now in use and raking in the fees for the city/county/state/etc.

reply to post by harrytuttle


The person still broke the law. Why should they pay less for it that somebody that was caught once five years ago? As my father use to say, "if you're going to be stupid, you better be tough."

How does this effect things like filing for a "prayer for judgement" or claiming defective equipment? If you have a clean record or extenuatiing circumstances there are ways around the fine in most states.

reply to post by MikeNice81

I see - so your argument is that it's unfair for people with long term clean driving records to have the opportunity to have reduced fines because people who break the law more often don't get that chance?

That's not the way the justice system works. The previous record of criminals that have been convicted of more serious crimes is ALWAYS considered in the judgment of their sentence. If you've been accused of robbery 3 times, your sentence will almost always be more severe than the first time offender.

Why shouldn't the justice system work the same way for much less serious offenses?