First, here is what I actually said:
Quote:
Nice fantasy. But in the real world (at least in my part of it, 'Bloomberg Village') it would get you a hefty fine. Most jurisdictions depend on traffic violations as revenue generators. As the economy worsens, judicial leniency will also decline.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redyaris
Your seem perceptive when it come to other peoples "nice fantasy" but quit blind to your own. For one the Idea that Judges pass down hefty fines because "most jurisdictions depend on traffic violators as revenue generatos" and that "as the economy worsens, Judicial leniency will also decline" is fantasy. The notion that judges first consult the records of public finance before asessing financial penalty is fanciful as well as offensive to the judicial system and judges... most of whom are reasonable and fair.
|
This is a good example of reading into a post and drawing erroneous conclusions to argue against. I never said that judges pass down hefty fines
because... that is your inference, not mine. I merely stated that traffic violations and surcharges in this area are very high, and that is a FACT, simply stated.
I also said "(m)ost jurisdictions depend on traffic violations as revenue generators" and that also is an observable fact. The revenue generated by such enforcement is substantial and the budget of the local government would be impacted if it were to suddenly disappear.
Generally speaking, as an economy worsens people do become less charitable or lenient and call for stricter laws, rules, penalties, etc. That is an observable, universal tendency in society at large.
You drew the final conclusion that "The notion that judges first consult the records of public finance before asessing financial penalty is fanciful as well as offensive to the judicial system and judges... most of whom are reasonable and fair." I never stated that either. You took my several statements, wove them into a unified argument that I never made and contested it. That's known as creating a 'straw man' argument. (
click here)