I understand the point of the owner being responsible for the car but the driver gets the ticket if he is pulled over by an officer and the owner gets the ticket if caught by a camera. Consistency from government might be asking too much, but it doesn’t seem fair give the same ticket to different people depending on how the infraction was witnessed.
I never quite understood the Biblical concept that there are no degrees of sin, that is a sin is a sin,all the same. Argue with the clergy all day and never come to agreement on that one.
I am a military paralegal. The accuser is the State, not the camera. The camera is merely a tool with which the accuser gathers evidence, in the same manner as surveillance cameras, forensic evidence, eyewitness evidence and scene analysis. To argue that you have the right to face a camera is to argue that you have the right to face the tape used to lift your fingerprints from a crime scene.
I am a military paralegal who used to be the assistant to the special prosecutor on Fort Meade Maryland. The only time we used the speed cameras as evidence was if the photo was perfectly clear, free of glare, reflection, distortion and clearly showed both the plate and the driver. If the driver wanted to contest the ticket and showed up in court, and didn’t match the driver in the photo, case dismissed. And we never prosecuted people driving fleet vehicles. It was simply not worth the cost of tracking down the driver for a small fine.
I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. It is well within keeping with tradition of law enforcement in the USA, but I believe not in the manner you intend. In defending a client accused of rape, I conducted research in the accuracy of DNA testing when applied to the body fluids collected at a crime scene. If everything goes well, if all the samples are collected flawlessly and handled in a sterile environment and the chain of custody for the evidence is flawlessly followed, then the chance of error is one in 13 quintillion. When you factor in human error, fatigue, bias, agenda, carelessness, profit motive and any number of factors which must be considered anytime a living breathing human handles the evidence, then the accuracy rate plummeted. In one case in 100, the DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable. A camera is free of bias, prejudice, agenda or motive. The people analyzing the the photos are not.
Rules for Evidence apply no matter the forum.
That is the point I have made in this and many other forums addressing this matter. Surveillance cameras are used regularly in prosecuting, and almost as often, exonerating the accused. A speed camera falls in the exact same tradition and follows the precedence laid by surveillance cameras in banks. Yet, I haven’t heard anyone pose the argument that one cannot face his accuser when a camera in a bank captures the image of a robber. What’s the difference? I suggest there is none.