A just way to run fixed penalties.
Discussion
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
fluffnik said:
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
I agree that the *penalty* shouldn't change.
However there should be costs to pay where you go for a court hearing & are found guilty after having been issued with a FPN.
fluffnik said:
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Why would anyone accept a FP even if they have been ‘caught red handed’? You could always go to court on the chance that you don’t get done and clog up the system at no extra cost to you.
In my very limited experience, the problem is that if you don’t accept a FP and decide to go to court and are found guilty you ALWAYS end up with a greater punishment than the FP. With other instances of the criminal justice system, you can plead not guilty, get found guilty, but then only be given a ‘token’ punishment. That is much closer to real justice.
SamHH said:
Aren't there other instances in the criminal justice system where if you plead not guilty and are found guilty, you will receive a harsher punishment than if you plead guilty. Do you advocate changing this throughout the criminal justice system?
Yes.
Incitements to say a particular thing to a court rather than tell the truth can only be wrong.
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
I agree that the *penalty* shouldn't change.
However there should be costs to pay where you go for a court hearing & are found guilty after having been issued with a FPN.
Nope.
That chills justice too.
black-k1 said:
fluffnik said:
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Why would anyone accept a FP even if they have been ‘caught red handed’? You could always go to court on the chance that you don’t get done and clog up the system at no extra cost to you.
Justice is not cheap.
If your certain of your guilt and have no mitigating circumstances you save time accepting the ticket.
Remember: the State should exist for the convenience of the citizen, not vice versa.
black-k1 said:
In my very limited experience, the problem is that if you don’t accept a FP and decide to go to court and are found guilty you ALWAYS end up with a greater punishment than the FP. With other instances of the criminal justice system, you can plead not guilty, get found guilty, but then only be given a ‘token’ punishment. That is much closer to real justice.
Hence my suggestion that the FP should represent the absolute maximum penalty that you should face.
No the person doesn't get a more severe sentence for not pleading guilty, what they get is a reduction for pleading guilty.
Do we see everyone convicted of burglary, theft etc.. getting made to pay costs if they defend themselves and are found guilty? If not, why is it that way for motorists/cash cows.
Do we see everyone convicted of burglary, theft etc.. getting made to pay costs if they defend themselves and are found guilty? If not, why is it that way for motorists/cash cows.
jasandjules said:
No the person doesn't get a more severe sentence for not pleading guilty, what they get is a reduction for pleading guilty.
That strikes me as being more about convenience than justice too.
jasandjules said:
Do we see everyone convicted of burglary, theft etc.. getting made to pay costs if they defend themselves and are found guilty? If not, why is it that way for motorists/cash cows.
Elections in May...
In essence it is.
It is a way of saying that a court case is a long winded and expensive process. Now if you are a good boy and say that you did it, because you have saved the Justice System time and money, you will be rewarded by having a deduction made in your sentence. This deduction runs on a sliding scale as to when the Defendant admits guilt.
No system of justice is perfect, and I am afraid that having studied a few of them, ours is, in the main, one of the best in the world. Which at times isn't saying much.
It is a way of saying that a court case is a long winded and expensive process. Now if you are a good boy and say that you did it, because you have saved the Justice System time and money, you will be rewarded by having a deduction made in your sentence. This deduction runs on a sliding scale as to when the Defendant admits guilt.
No system of justice is perfect, and I am afraid that having studied a few of them, ours is, in the main, one of the best in the world. Which at times isn't saying much.
jasandjules said:
No the person doesn't get a more severe sentence for not pleading guilty, what they get is a reduction for pleading guilty.
Do we see everyone convicted of burglary, theft etc.. getting made to pay costs if they defend themselves and are found guilty? If not, why is it that way for motorists/cash cows.
Do we see everyone convicted of burglary, theft etc.. getting made to pay costs if they defend themselves and are found guilty? If not, why is it that way for motorists/cash cows.
How does offering a person inscentives to pleady guilty serve justice?
odyssey2200 said:
[quote=jasandjules] ...
How does offering a person inscentives to pleady guilty serve justice?
How does offering a person inscentives to pleady guilty serve justice?
If one agrees that one is guilty then would one rather pay £60 by cheque or go through the hassle of a magistrates' court hearing and quite probably pay more (with the time off work that a court appearance would entail)?
This is on the assumption that the penalty notice was issued by a police officer in person (and was the original idea behind the introduction of fixed penalty notices for motoring offences back in the early '80s - the travesty that is referred to in previous posts was not intended at that time, I assume
) and not by a scamera partnership 
.odyssey2200 said:
How does offering a person inscentives to pleady guilty serve justice?
The Prosecution need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a case where the evidence isn't too strong, or the defence counsel is damn good, there is a chance he can get away with it... THAT would not be justice, but it does happen.
So better he serves a lesser sentence to encourage those who are guilty to go to jail right away and save wasting the courts time and money. It is exceedingly expensive to run a trial, and takes up a lot of police officer time for no good reason if everyone knows he is guilty........
So whilst on the face of it, it seems like a stupid idea, it does actually make a reasonable amount of sense. Also bear in mind that on remand time is taken off the sentence, so if pleading NG leads to a six month trial, he may be released straight away anyways !
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
As things stand many people accept fixed penalties wrongly because the cost of defending oneself is likely to be greater than just coughing up; this does not serve justice well.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
Fixed penalty notices should set a maximum level of penalty that can be applied in that case, whether paid without complaint or vigourously defended, only then can they be considered just.
I agree that the *penalty* shouldn't change.
However there should be costs to pay where you go for a court hearing & are found guilty after having been issued with a FPN.
This never fails to make me mad!!
The courts are paid for already from our taxes; they are a PUBLIC utility!
They are NOT there to make a profit or satisfy a balance sheet for the CPS!
It is absolutely imperative that justice MUST be made available with NO THREAT to the accused.
The clear threat of massive expenses on losing is one of the most blatant prejudices in the English court system.
It has to stop!
Edited by jith on Friday 23 February 09:38
jith said:
vonhosen said:
I agree that the *penalty* shouldn't change.
However there should be costs to pay where you go for a court hearing & are found guilty after having been issued with a FPN.
This never fails to make me mad!!
The courts are paid for already from our taxes; they are a PUBLIC utility!
They should be; turning them into profit centres is classic fascism.
jith said:
They are NOT there to make a profit or satisfy a balance sheet for the CPS!
It is absolutely imperative that justice MUST be made available with NO THREAT to the accused.
The clear threat of massive expenses on loosing is one of the most blatant prejudices in the English court system.
It has to stop!
Yup, we need to expunge all the racketeers from the organs of the state.
jasandjules said:
The Prosecution need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Correct.
They should not try to bribe/intimidate the accused into pleading guilty for their convenience.
If it costs to much money and freedom to prosecute victimless technical (non)crimes without bribery and erosion of fundamental right they should just not prosecute them.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff