Poetic Justice

>>Again, does that mean that appropriate punishment for a minor traffic
>>infraction is to lose your job? Sheesh, I just don't get this attitude
>>where people seem to think it's appropriate to punish someone MUCH more
>>severely just because they are calendar-challenged. -Dave
>>
> The punishment isn't to lose a job, it's to ride a bus.
> Or are you saying that the punishment of going to jail should be seen
> as a punishment of losing a job, and therefore souldn't be done?

No, what I'm saying is, if you give an adult a small fine, it is not right
to cause a teenager to lose their job for the exact same offense. As
someone else wrote, that's unequal justice. -Dave

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:06:33 -0500,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>
>>>In that case, you would be treated as an adult, and wouldn't be given
>>>the choice to ride a bus or take the conventional punishment,
>>>including the record that went with it.
>>>Which is anothe rpoint you forgot: the teens have the choice. If
>>>riding the bus means they lose a job, they can choose the conventional
>>>punishment.
>>
>>Which would be fine, except that the judge jacks up the conventional
>>punishment (compared to that of older offenders who commit the same
>>offense) in order to get the teen to accept the unconventional one.
>
> Ar eyou saying that the original citation doesn't carry the sentence
> the judge gives? I don't see how that's possible.
> If the citation is, for example, for speeding, doesn't that infraction
> already carry the suspension as a possible punishment? If not, you're
> right. But I don't see how a judge can possibly mete out a punishment
> greater than the maximum allowed.

Simple, really. You CAN have your license suspended for (for example)
speeding, but that hardly ever happens. Mostly, you get fined. But if
you are a teenager, the punishment is much more severe. The judge gives the
teenager a choice of two punishments, BOTH of them much more severe than an
adult would have received. -Dave

"gpsman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
>> If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>> year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>> circumstances, that's not justice.
>
> Minors are not equal to adults in many legal circunstances. Minors are
> "learning" to drive, supposedly. Traffic offenses are not all equal.

Yes. That means judges should treat teen drivers no differently than
adults. (how else are they going to learn?) If there is a difference,
judges should be more lenient with teenagers, allowing for the fact that the
teenagers are still LEARNING. Whereas, the judge should be much harsher on
adults, who supposedly KNOW BETTER.

> If the judge had chosen to fine her fifty bucks and she'd burst into
> tears... would you have a problem with that as well?
> -----

No, because that would probably be the same way the judge would treat an
adult. -Dave

In article . com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
>> If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>> year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>> circumstances, that's not justice.
>
>Minors are not equal to adults in many legal circunstances. Minors are
>"learning" to drive, supposedly. Traffic offenses are not all equal.

So you agree that it's unequal justice. Seems awfully strange to punish
someone "learning" more harshly than someone who should know better.

>> Even if, perhaps especially if,
>> the judge is doing that in order to force acquiesence to her own
>> nontraditional punishment.
>
>The teen is not forced to comply with the judge's decision, she can
>defy it... and accept those consequences if she so chooses. I'd lay
>about 50/50 on those odds, the kid doesn't seem all that smart.

Given that the consequences of contempt of court include jail, that's
"forced to comply" in any reasonable sense of the term.

>If the judge had chosen to fine her fifty bucks and she'd burst into
>tears... would you have a problem with that as well?

No. It's not her tears which are the problem; it's the judge's
apparent celebration of them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Mike T. wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
> >> If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
> >> year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
> >> circumstances, that's not justice.
> >
> > Minors are not equal to adults in many legal circunstances. Minors are
> > "learning" to drive, supposedly. Traffic offenses are not all equal.
>
> Yes. That means judges should treat teen drivers no differently than
> adults. (how else are they going to learn?)

Learn what? I think she's been provided the opportunity to learn not
to drive like she was driving, and that traffic offenses aren't taken
lightly by the court.

For all we know this teen was speeding 80 in a 35 residential district.
And, for all we know, the sentence was for 3 days. It's impossible to
tell if the punishment fits the crime with the ****-poor reporting of
the generalities of this case.

I presume the judge would have been more lenient if the offense were
relatively minor... and the defendant hadn't demonstrated to the court
that she felt both her offense and possible punishment were of little
consequence. I can't think of too many more stupid things to
demonstrate while standing before the bench.

> If there is a difference,
> judges should be more lenient with teenagers, allowing for the fact that the
> teenagers are still LEARNING. Whereas, the judge should be much harsher on
> adults, who supposedly KNOW BETTER.

The knowledge traffic laws of both groups should be equal. I would
argue the inexperienced driver with a probationary license and lesser
skills should be required to exercise a greater amount of caution.

>
> > If the judge had chosen to fine her fifty bucks and she'd burst into
> > tears... would you have a problem with that as well?
>
> No, because that would probably be the same way the judge would treat an
> adult.

I think not. The maximum sentence for traffic violations often, if not
always, includes the possibility of jail. An adult demonstrating
contempt before the bench for the law, the court and the possible
consequences would likely find their ass in the crossbar hotel. An
adult could not be ordered to ride a school bus instead.

I'm willing to believe the judge was appropiate in her decision.
Adults are often made an example for the public to consider before
acting in a similar manner. In that regard, the teen may have
received, more or less, equal "justice".
-----

- gpsman

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:20:13 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

>>>Again, does that mean that appropriate punishment for a minor traffic
>>>infraction is to lose your job? Sheesh, I just don't get this attitude
>>>where people seem to think it's appropriate to punish someone MUCH more
>>>severely just because they are calendar-challenged. -Dave
>>>
>> The punishment isn't to lose a job, it's to ride a bus.
>> Or are you saying that the punishment of going to jail should be seen
>> as a punishment of losing a job, and therefore souldn't be done?
>
>No, what I'm saying is, if you give an adult a small fine, it is not right
>to cause a teenager to lose their job for the exact same offense. As
>someone else wrote, that's unequal justice. -Dave
>
It's not a case of causing a teenager to lose his job because of
riding the bus.
It's much more a case of consequences, even unintended ones. The fault
here is not with the court for the teenager losing his job; that's the
fault of the teenager. He's the one who brought this on. It's his
responsibility.
Placing the responsibility on the court is exactly getting it
backwards.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:23:28 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:06:33 -0500,
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In that case, you would be treated as an adult, and wouldn't be given
>>>>the choice to ride a bus or take the conventional punishment,
>>>>including the record that went with it.
>>>>Which is anothe rpoint you forgot: the teens have the choice. If
>>>>riding the bus means they lose a job, they can choose the conventional
>>>>punishment.
>>>
>>>Which would be fine, except that the judge jacks up the conventional
>>>punishment (compared to that of older offenders who commit the same
>>>offense) in order to get the teen to accept the unconventional one.
>>
>>Ar eyou saying that the original citation doesn't carry the sentence
>>the judge gives? I don't see how that's possible.
>
>I would assume it carries that as a possible sentence. But it's not
>the usual sentence.

Well, now, you want to limit the courts to the "usual" sentence?
I've always thought the judge was able to deliver any punishment
between the minimum and the maximum.
No?
>
>>If the citation is, for example, for speeding, doesn't that infraction
>>already carry the suspension as a possible punishment? If not, you're
>>right. But I don't see how a judge can possibly mete out a punishment
>>greater than the maximum allowed.
>>If you're trying to say that suspension isn't always meted out, but is
>>a possibility within the judge's legal choices, well, that's an
>>entirely different thing
>
>If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>circumstances, that's not justice. Even if, perhaps especially if,
>the judge is doing that in order to force acquiesence to her own
>nontraditional punishment.

It's not justice?
Well, maybe in your world, but here it's not only legal, but if the
judge determines that such a justice system serves the public, it's
his duty to do so.
Or, do I have the whole thing backwards; is the judge supposed to
instead deliver a justice that's amenable to the convicted?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

>> > Minors are not equal to adults in many legal circunstances. Minors are
>> > "learning" to drive, supposedly. Traffic offenses are not all equal.
>>
>> Yes. That means judges should treat teen drivers no differently than
>> adults. (how else are they going to learn?)
>
> Learn what? I think she's been provided the opportunity to learn not
> to drive like she was driving, and that traffic offenses aren't taken
> lightly by the court.

But they ARE taken lightly by the court, as long as you are an adult. When
was the last time you heard of some adult going to jail for speeding,
outside of that one backward-ass state (virginia?) where they consider
30-over the 30-under-posted limit to be -criminal-, with mandatory jail
time. Essentially, confining a teenager to a bus at a certain time and
location (under fear of contempt of court) is a form of house arrest, which
has been often substituted for jail time. Maybe we should coin a new term,
"bus arrest". Can you imagine the backlash if all adults caught speeding
were sentenced to house arrest? It would lead to the abolishment of speed
limits, almost overnight.

> For all we know this teen was speeding 80 in a 35 residential district.

Nope, that didn't happen. We know this, as, in addition to the "creative",
unusual and unequal punishment, there would be no way that the teen would
have retained a driver's license, if guilty of 80 in a 35 residential
district.

> And, for all we know, the sentence was for 3 days.

3 days likely wouldn't have been enough to draw tears, not even from an
over-sensitive teenage girl.

> I presume the judge would have been more lenient if (snip) the defendant
> hadn't demonstrated to the court
> that she felt both her offense and possible punishment were of little
> consequence.

How do you demonstrate to the court that offense and punishment are of
little consequence? Apparently, this is as easy to do as NOT breaking down
and crying in front of the judge.

> The knowledge traffic laws of both groups should be equal.

You are right, until you factor in the game factor. Nobody respects
under-posted speed limits, making the tax collection racket a game. Adults
have equal knowledge of the WRITTEN rules of the game, but still play the
game much better. Many adults can drive all the way across the country at
10-20 over (AVERAGE!) and not be bothered at all, but most teenagers would
lose their license several times over attempting the same journey at the
same average speed. Which one is a safer driver? Only an idiot would claim
that it is the one with fewer tickets, if that is the only measure of
safety.

> I would
> argue the inexperienced driver with a probationary license and lesser
> skills should be required to exercise a greater amount of caution.

I would argue that also, but probably not for the reasons you would. When
you are a teenager, you are much more likely to get nabbed by the armed
revenue patrol, even if you drive better than most (adults WITH PERFECT
DRIVING RECORDS) do.

> I think not. The maximum sentence for traffic violations often, if not
> always, includes the possibility of jail.

What world are you living in? It sure is far removed from the United
States, in the 21st century. -Dave

> It's not a case of causing a teenager to lose his job because of
> riding the bus.
> It's much more a case of consequences, even unintended ones. The fault
> here is not with the court for the teenager losing his job; that's the
> fault of the teenager. He's the one who brought this on. It's his
> responsibility.
> Placing the responsibility on the court is exactly getting it
> backwards.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

No, the responsibility IS on the court. Losing your job is not a reasonable
punishment for minor traffic infractions. If the usual fine and/or license
suspention was the punishment, then I'd say the teenager should be willing
to "do the time" if she's going to "do the crime".

Having trouble grasping the unequal justice angle? Imagine if a 35-year-old
single mom with two kids was caught speeding, say 40 in a 30, and the judge
imposed house arrest, causing the lady to lose her job. NOW do you see why
this is so outrageous? Essentially, as I wrote earlier, this sentence
amounts to a form of house arrest, that we maybe should term "bus arrest".
Get it now? -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > It's not a case of causing a teenager to lose his job because of
> > riding the bus.
> > It's much more a case of consequences, even unintended ones. The fault
> > here is not with the court for the teenager losing his job; that's the
> > fault of the teenager. He's the one who brought this on. It's his
> > responsibility.
> > Placing the responsibility on the court is exactly getting it
> > backwards.
> > --
> > Bill Funk
> > replace "g" with "a"
>
> Having trouble grasping the unequal justice angle?

No, but you seem totally lost.

> Imagine if a 35-year-old
> single mom with two kids was caught speeding, say 40 in a 30, and the judge
> imposed house arrest, causing the lady to lose her job. NOW do you see why
> this is so outrageous?

Your comparison, yes.

> Essentially, as I wrote earlier, this sentence
> amounts to a form of house arrest, that we maybe should term "bus arrest".
> Get it now?

I'm afraid I don't. The child is not confined to the bus, as far as we
know has no job, and I deduce that she resides with her parents. Any
adult single-mom caught speeding in the ordinary fashion has the option
to submit the fine and forget the whole thing.

There is a reason minors accused of traffic offenses are required to
appear in court. Can you guess what it is?
-----

- gpsman