Thursday, June 14, 2007
Noted, a major improvement in justice - negotiable traffic tickets
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Memorial Day weekend marks the beginning of the summer vacation and weekend driving period. It is therefore the time for highway authorities to remind drivers to tighten seatbelts, reinforced by some strong words from Governor Corzine, the most famous case of injuries caused by flaunting the law.
It was therefore no surprise for me to find a highway trooper on the median of Taconic Parkway, looking for violators. I was some 60 miles north of the city, in light traffic, just bounced off the right lane by a guy mindlessly speeding out of the side road, and was not surprised to see the trooper take off after him. I slowed down to let him pass, and he did, placing himself in front of my car and flagging the speeder down, on to the shoulder. But, surprise, he also flagged me down.
I moved to the shoulder, the trooper parked in between, and walked over. "Registration and driver’s license, please, keep your hands in sight and do not exit the car," he said, in his cop’s voice.
"Officer, I was not speeding," I protested. "Yes you were, he was doing 73 and you were doing 70, in a 55 mile zone," he answered. "If so, only momentarily, only to avoid getting hit, my speed control was set under 65." At this point it should be explained that there is an unwritten agreement between the troopers and drivers on the Taconic Parkway, an easy road, to extend the limit to 65 miles an hour, on clear days. It is in the interests of moving the traffic on this increasingly popular road, with growing population, both year-round and summer, more so since 9/11/2001. The cops will never admit to it, when interviewed, but that’s the reality.
At this moment my wife, a totally truthful woman, spoke up: "I was knitting, and I did not see anything, but he always sets his speed control below 65." "Well, you have got control, you can plead not guilty at the traffic court,’ he grinned, naming the town of jurisdiction over that part of the Parkway.
No, no, we protested, we just wanted justice. He looked at us, and in a normal voice, said: "Tell you what; I’ll give you a seatbelt." "Thank you, officer," I had unbuckled, to get at my wallet, so he was technically correct.
The lawman left, to check our credentials, and returned with a complex computer- printed traffic ticket. "This here is a citation for a seatbelt violation, no points. Now, if you might find that you had your seatbelt on, and try to contest it, there is another part, for speeding, that will cost you points. Do I make myself clear?" "Perfectly clear, officer, no problem and thanks," I was practically crawling with gratitude.
The next day, in the office, I had a story. "I have a ticket to pay that I’m actually glad to honor, can you believe that," I challenged a co-worker. "Yes, I believe you, I have one too," he countered. It turned out that in Sparta, his home town in New Jersey, his wife passed a stop sign while turning a corner, and was nailed by an officer. "I told you to be careful but you don’t listen," my friend had laced into his cringing sweetie, until the officer interrupted him, maybe feeling sorry, and offered to write a ticket for a much lesser offense, an obstructed license plate. Much relieved, the couple accepted the compromise. "Do you think he would have been so receptive to your story, had I not opened my mouth?" thus my friend, who claims that he was rewarded with a non-admitting kiss.
Some conclusions from all this. We know from Law and Order – my sometime source of everyday ethics, now given another year of existence, Saturdays at 8 PM – that justice is negotiable. Criminals can take a plea and settle for reduced sentence, even more so if they squeal on accomplices. Is that right, or should all cases of illegal actions be accorded equitable justice? Yes, of course, but the practicality of overworked court systems forces compromises. Justice must be applied swiftly, without delay. The costs of trying all cases, time and money, whether paid for by individuals or states, would escalate mercilessly. Consider the impracticality of death sentences; if not humanely justifiable, look how many years they take to adjudicate and how much they cost.
With all this background on hand, does it not make sense that that traffic laws be administered with the same effectiveness? Does it not make sense that roadside compromises be effected, if the state and municipality can collect some comparable penalty without court appearances by the offenders and troopers, and remorse is shown? Obviously, leniency will not be offered when a check of the records, now wireless, reveals a dangerous history that might mandate a license-suspension threatening penalty. Rational compromises are just an absolute necessity of civilized existence.
Memorial Day weekend marks the beginning of the summer vacation and weekend driving period. It is therefore the time for highway authorities to remind drivers to tighten seatbelts, reinforced by some strong words from Governor Corzine, the most famous case of injuries caused by flaunting the law.
It was therefore no surprise for me to find a highway trooper on the median of Taconic Parkway, looking for violators. I was some 60 miles north of the city, in light traffic, just bounced off the right lane by a guy mindlessly speeding out of the side road, and was not surprised to see the trooper take off after him. I slowed down to let him pass, and he did, placing himself in front of my car and flagging the speeder down, on to the shoulder. But, surprise, he also flagged me down.
I moved to the shoulder, the trooper parked in between, and walked over. "Registration and driver’s license, please, keep your hands in sight and do not exit the car," he said, in his cop’s voice.
"Officer, I was not speeding," I protested. "Yes you were, he was doing 73 and you were doing 70, in a 55 mile zone," he answered. "If so, only momentarily, only to avoid getting hit, my speed control was set under 65." At this point it should be explained that there is an unwritten agreement between the troopers and drivers on the Taconic Parkway, an easy road, to extend the limit to 65 miles an hour, on clear days. It is in the interests of moving the traffic on this increasingly popular road, with growing population, both year-round and summer, more so since 9/11/2001. The cops will never admit to it, when interviewed, but that’s the reality.
At this moment my wife, a totally truthful woman, spoke up: "I was knitting, and I did not see anything, but he always sets his speed control below 65." "Well, you have got control, you can plead not guilty at the traffic court,’ he grinned, naming the town of jurisdiction over that part of the Parkway.
No, no, we protested, we just wanted justice. He looked at us, and in a normal voice, said: "Tell you what; I’ll give you a seatbelt." "Thank you, officer," I had unbuckled, to get at my wallet, so he was technically correct.
The lawman left, to check our credentials, and returned with a complex computer- printed traffic ticket. "This here is a citation for a seatbelt violation, no points. Now, if you might find that you had your seatbelt on, and try to contest it, there is another part, for speeding, that will cost you points. Do I make myself clear?" "Perfectly clear, officer, no problem and thanks," I was practically crawling with gratitude.
The next day, in the office, I had a story. "I have a ticket to pay that I’m actually glad to honor, can you believe that," I challenged a co-worker. "Yes, I believe you, I have one too," he countered. It turned out that in Sparta, his home town in New Jersey, his wife passed a stop sign while turning a corner, and was nailed by an officer. "I told you to be careful but you don’t listen," my friend had laced into his cringing sweetie, until the officer interrupted him, maybe feeling sorry, and offered to write a ticket for a much lesser offense, an obstructed license plate. Much relieved, the couple accepted the compromise. "Do you think he would have been so receptive to your story, had I not opened my mouth?" thus my friend, who claims that he was rewarded with a non-admitting kiss.
Some conclusions from all this. We know from Law and Order – my sometime source of everyday ethics, now given another year of existence, Saturdays at 8 PM – that justice is negotiable. Criminals can take a plea and settle for reduced sentence, even more so if they squeal on accomplices. Is that right, or should all cases of illegal actions be accorded equitable justice? Yes, of course, but the practicality of overworked court systems forces compromises. Justice must be applied swiftly, without delay. The costs of trying all cases, time and money, whether paid for by individuals or states, would escalate mercilessly. Consider the impracticality of death sentences; if not humanely justifiable, look how many years they take to adjudicate and how much they cost.
With all this background on hand, does it not make sense that that traffic laws be administered with the same effectiveness? Does it not make sense that roadside compromises be effected, if the state and municipality can collect some comparable penalty without court appearances by the offenders and troopers, and remorse is shown? Obviously, leniency will not be offered when a check of the records, now wireless, reveals a dangerous history that might mandate a license-suspension threatening penalty. Rational compromises are just an absolute necessity of civilized existence.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 3:05 PM 
