Quote:
Originally posted by Jamie79SC
Jeff,
Get ready for a first:
I agree absolutly with your observation of traffic court. It doesn't matter how lame or valid your case is, the verdict is the same - reduced fine, pay the bailif...
You have to ask yourself why these traffic court judges have made such a horrible boring job for themselves.
|
I bet their wives are proud of them though. I wonder if there is some bizzar system by which they get rated or ranked based on conviction rates or something. Maybe part of it is that they see the same cops all the time and have formed some kind of relationship with them, making them reluctant to tell their "friends" they don't have a case.
At any rate, it is an axiom that people perform to their measures. In the case of the Kittitas County Court, the traffic judge has set the bar so low concerning an officer's testimony, verbal or written, that the officers just don't have to put much into it. The officers' written report is no more than a single page with some boxes to check, mimicking the ticket almost exactly. I could fill out these "reports" given a stack of them and the tickets that needed to be recorded without even having been at the stop. I wouldn't be surprised if some clerk does that and simply has the officers sign their stack.
The bigger issue here is, how did we let it get this way? These are OUR courts are they not? How did we let such a lazy and corrupt system get a foothold? I understand (I think) the difference between a "civil" and "criminal" infraction and the corresponding rules of evidence. It has finally reached the point, however, that it would seem no evidence is required at all. Just the officers' word. We, as citizens, are supposed to have protections against authorities that would treat us this way. Why don't we in traffic court? And where are the white wigs for those corrupt and lazy bastards?