The right to a far trial must involve facing your accuser

[sean 0]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser". You then inform him that he works for the state. He then says, "yes, indeed I do". You then make a motion to dismiss. He says,"on what grounds" You say, "conflict of interest".

The question I have is objectively, should this defense work? Could anyone anywhere expect to have a fair trail if your accuser/victim is the one putting you on trail?

[Paul's Here 0]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser". You then inform him that he works for the state. He then says, "yes, indeed I do". You then make a motion to dismiss. He says,"on what grounds" You say, "conflict of interest".

The question I have is objectively, should this defense work? Could anyone anywhere expect to have a fair trail if your accuser/victim is the one putting you on trail?

No, but where would a judge be the one accusing you of a crime?

[sean 0]

The question I have is objectively, should this defense work? Could anyone anywhere expect to have a fair trail if your accuser/victim is the one putting you on trail?

No, but where would a judge be the one accusing you of a crime?

If the judge is not my accuser then who is?

[sean 0]

If anything, I think it's a good case for privatizing the highway. At least then you would be on one side, the victim on the other and the State in the middle.

[sean 0]

Also, would you please conceptualize your argument against it?

[System Builder 0]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser".

I don't quite understand this. What "accuser" do you want to face? Do you mean the officer who issued the citation? (He works for the state, too.) Is this judge proposing to replace the citing officer as well as replacing the prosecuting attorney? Where I live I've seen cases where there was no prosecuting attorney, but I've never heard of the judge trying to replace the citing officer as well. Where I live, the principle is, no officer, no conviction. Case dismissed, due to the officer not showing up. Lately, I also learned of a case, probably not uncommon at all, where the trial was simply postponed rather than dismissed, so that the officer could show up later. In that case, the officer still didn't show up, so the judge dismissed it. In my area, a defendant can also decline to "waive time" and insist on a speedy trial (within 45 days), in which case the judge may be constrained by law (and by a judicial policy of fairness) from postponing the trial more than once.

Also, how can a judge offer any evidence in the trial if he didn't see the alleged crime and issue the citation? Are you talking about a case where the officer submits some kind of written evidence but doesn't show up at the trial in person? I would think you would have a very strong ground for moving to dismiss the case if there is no evidence against you, or no live officer to testify as to the evidence and submit to cross examination by you or your attorney (if you have one). In fact, in my area the defendant doesn't have to do anything if the officer doesn't show up. The judge will either postpone or dismiss on the spot.

[sean 0]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser".

I don't quite understand this. What "accuser" do you want to face? Do you mean the officer who issued the citation? (He works for the state, too.) Is this judge proposing to replace the citing officer as well as replacing the prosecuting attorney? Where I live I've seen cases where there was no prosecuting attorney, but I've never heard of the judge trying to replace the citing officer as well. Where I live, the principle is, no officer, no conviction. Case dismissed, due to the officer not showing up. Lately, I also learned of a case, probably not uncommon at all, where the trial was simply postponed rather than dismissed, so that the officer could show up later. In that case, the officer still didn't show up, so the judge dismissed it. In my area, a defendant can also decline to "waive time" and insist on a speedy trial (within 45 days), in which case the judge may be constrained by law (and by a judicial policy of fairness) from postponing the trial more than once.

Also, how can a judge offer any evidence in the trial if he didn't see the alleged crime and issue the citation? Are you talking about a case where the officer submits some kind of written evidence but doesn't show up at the trial in person? I would think you would have a very strong ground for moving to dismiss the case if there is no evidence against you, or no live officer to testify as to the evidence and submit to cross examination by you or your attorney (if you have one). In fact, in my area the defendant doesn't have to do anything if the officer doesn't show up. The judge will either postpone or dismiss on the spot.

Ok then, the same thing would apply to the officer as well. He's a paid member of the State. He might tell you he works for you, but legally his duty is first and foremost to the State. I still don't see how this is not a conflict of interest. The same can also be said about any prosecutor and if I understand it correctly even "your" attorney you hire has to swear an oath to the State. So in the vain of Howard Roark I must now say, how can one present a defense when no defense is possible? Yes, I know that people beat speeding tickets all the time, but this only seems to be done by favor of both the driver and the State not understanding objective law. It seems if people understood property right (rights that do exist) Vs. State's rights ( rights that don't exist) the whole roadway system would have to be sold off to a private citizen in other to have a proper middle man for the State to point to and say, "Here's the person you victimized by breach of contract. Even if you can somehow argue that the cop works indiscriminately for both you and the State and if we can also overlook the "forced giving" it it takes to pay his wages, you still don't have a victim because no ones been hurt. You never had a contract with THAT man. The only thing that happen was,you drove on property that you were forced to pay for and some guy who you were forced to his wage is pulling you over. How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?

[Paul's Here 0]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser".

I don't quite understand this. What "accuser" do you want to face? Do you mean the officer who issued the citation? (He works for the state, too.) Is this judge proposing to replace the citing officer as well as replacing the prosecuting attorney? Where I live I've seen cases where there was no prosecuting attorney, but I've never heard of the judge trying to replace the citing officer as well. Where I live, the principle is, no officer, no conviction. Case dismissed, due to the officer not showing up. Lately, I also learned of a case, probably not uncommon at all, where the trial was simply postponed rather than dismissed, so that the officer could show up later. In that case, the officer still didn't show up, so the judge dismissed it. In my area, a defendant can also decline to "waive time" and insist on a speedy trial (within 45 days), in which case the judge may be constrained by law (and by a judicial policy of fairness) from postponing the trial more than once.

Also, how can a judge offer any evidence in the trial if he didn't see the alleged crime and issue the citation? Are you talking about a case where the officer submits some kind of written evidence but doesn't show up at the trial in person? I would think you would have a very strong ground for moving to dismiss the case if there is no evidence against you, or no live officer to testify as to the evidence and submit to cross examination by you or your attorney (if you have one). In fact, in my area the defendant doesn't have to do anything if the officer doesn't show up. The judge will either postpone or dismiss on the spot.

Ok then, the same thing would apply to the officer as well. He's a paid member of the State. He might tell you he works for you, but legally his duty is first and foremost to the State. I still don't see how this is not a conflict of interest. The same can also be said about any prosecutor and if I understand it correctly even "your" attorney you hire has to swear an oath to the State. So in the vain of Howard Roark I must now say, how can one present a defense when no defense is possible? Yes, I know that people beat speeding tickets all the time, but this only seems to be done by favor of both the driver and the State not understanding objective law. It seems if people understood property right (rights that do exist) Vs. State's rights ( rights that don't exist) the whole roadway system would have to be sold off to a private citizen in other to have a proper middle man for the State to point to and say, "Here's the person you victimized by breach of contract. Even if you can somehow argue that the cop works indiscriminately for both you and the State and if we can also overlook the "forced giving" it it takes to pay his wages, you still don't have a victim because no ones been hurt. You never had a contract with THAT man. The only thing that happen was,you drove on property that you were forced to pay for and some guy who you were forced to his wage is pulling you over. How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?

I suggest you drop the Rothbardian libertarian gobbledygook and thinking that anyone who works for "the state" has some sort of grudge against you. An officer is supposed to tell the truth, not support the state, whatever that means. You know it is illegal to speed and if an officers sees you speeding, he is not testifying because he works for the state, he is testifying because you were speeding and he caught you.

[Paul's Here 0]

------------------

How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?

So, if I see someone rob you or murder you, how was I hurt? Why should I testify or care about you? Where's the victim? Not me.

[JeffT 0]

It's valid, for more severe crimes, for the state to prosecute as a separate action from the civil tort which is designed to compensate the victim, even if the victim does not otherwise care to pursue the matter. For example, a rape or assault against a random victim constitutes a threat to society at large, even if for some odd reason, that particular victim doesn't sue for compensation, or care to initiate criminal charges.

[sean 0]

------------------

How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?

So, if I see someone rob you or murder you, how was I hurt? Why should I testify or care about you? Where's the victim? Not me.

Ah, that would be me. I would have been the victim of force. "Why should I testify or care about you?" You might want to read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I'll save my "is it right to force someone who has forced no one to testify in your defense through the use of force" question for some other thread. Look, I do see where your coming from, but my point is cops, judges and the State by and large care more about what's in your wallet more then they do about your safety. I remember reading once about a police department that was prosecuted under the RICO act for racketeering by setting up speed traps. That is now case law. Hell, even my best friend's a cop and he'll admit it to your face that all he is supposed to do is generate revenue. I personally don't condone speeding or wreckless driving, but yes there is case law on the books about such stuff and if same jerk wants to get away with speeding, drunk driving or whatever, all they have to do is spend some time studying this stuff and their off the hook. http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1

[sean 0]

I know I maybe coming for as some sort of Libertarian nut case here, but every time I ask an Objectivist or a Libertarian how do we go from public force funding of the roadways to the free market privatization of them, the answer I always hear time and time again is 'somehow'. I thought that if I go to the extreme and show how and why we eventually will have to go by way of privatization I might start finding some real answers.

[JeffT 0]

I know I maybe coming for as some sort of Libertarian nut case here, but every time I ask an Objectivist or a Libertarian how do we go from public force funding of the roadways to the free market privatization of them, the answer I always hear time and time again is 'somehow'.

Because it would be an extremely complex and specialized process. You need bodies to standardize payment, rules of access, rules of conduct, and much more, in a manner acceptable to the various property owners, managers, car manufacturers, insurers, and users. One need not know the process in detail in order to advocate that capitalism is the only moral, and the most practical, system. Ask somebody involved in complex real estate transactions, who deals with zoning*, property associations, and insurance, and you'd probably get better answers of the details, than asking a general Objectivist.

(*Zoning is improper under capitalism but somebody who works in the field today might be in a better position to explain the intricate details of how a private alternative would work.)

I thought that if I go to the extreme and show how and why we eventually will have to go by way of privatization I might start finding some real answers.

Although we do need private roads, it's not for the reason you stated in this thread.

[sean 0]

It most certainty is the reason. I may have not made it obvious form the start, but that was my intention. You have just failed to conceptualize what it is I'm getting it. The point I'd been trying to make is that people like this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1 are going to court, using the defense I mentioned earlier and winning and if more and more people continue doing this, then it will come to a point where in order to actually prosecute anyone we will have to seek the privatization of all public roadways. This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all. What, do you think government is just going to handed over the public roadways to the free market without a reason? They'll spend us all into oblivion before that happens.

[sean 0]

It most certainty is the reason. I may have not made it obvious form the start, but that was my intention. You have just failed to conceptualize what it is I'm getting it. The point I'd been trying to make is that people like this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1 are going to court, using the defense I mentioned earlier and winning and if more and more people continue doing this, then it will come to a point where in order to actually prosecute anyone we will have to seek the privatization of all public roadways. This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all. What, do you think government is just going to handed over the public roadways to the free market without a reason? They'll spend us all into oblivion before that happens.

[JeffT 0]

It most certainty is the reason. I may have not made it obvious form the start, but that was my intention. You have just failed to conceptualize what it is I'm getting it. The point I'd been trying to make is that people like this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1 are going to court, using the defense I mentioned earlier and winning and if more and more people continue doing this, then it will come to a point where in order to actually prosecute anyone we will have to seek the privatization of all public roadways. This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all. What, do you think government is just going to handed over the public roadways to the free market without a reason? They'll spend us all into oblivion before that happens.

The reason that roads must be privatized is because the only proper function of government is to protect rights through a monopoly on the legal use of force (excepting limited self-defense). As far as I can tell the reason you are indicating is that prosecuting a crime--any crime--is somehow invalid, which is nonsense.

This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all.

If it happens, it will most likely be because cultural values change to value capitalism. Another possibility, is if the culture continues keeping us on a mixed economy for a long time--many decades--and costs of technology and manufacturing--of vehicles, and infrastructure--go down by orders of magnitude, then many private roads could appear within a mixed economy because the barriers to entry have gone down.

It certainly won't happen because of some bizarre legal technicality that the government is unable to prosecute crimes, the government somehow being powerless to stop said technicality, leaving it no option but to privatize roads.

[Guest Ryder]

So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser". You then inform him that he works for the state. He then says, "yes, indeed I do". You then make a motion to dismiss. He says,"on what grounds" You say, "conflict of interest".

The question I have is objectively, should this defense work? Could anyone anywhere expect to have a fair trail if your accuser/victim is the one putting you on trail?

I think your question is about who may or may be your accuser. I think that it is a necessity that your accuser can NOT be the same person that is judging you. I don't believe you will find a judge that says that they are the accuser. They will most likely say that the Plaintiff is the state.

I think that it only makes sense that the accuser must be distinct from the judge (and a jury).

There must be three parties present for justice to work, I believe: First, the accused, next the accuser, and finally, someone to sit in judgment.

Judges are expected to recuse themselves due to prejudice (for a judge to have prejudice literally destroys the concept of judgment).

In the case of a ticket, the state is your accuser, with the peace officer as a witness. The judge is appointed by the people, or their representatives, which I believe serves as the basis for their impartial position apart from the state. Sometimes the accuser can NOT be the victim, as the victim may no longer be alive, so the state must serve in that capacity.

Sadly, I don't know enough about Objectivism to say something on a strictly Objectivist basis.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Sadly, I don't know enough about Objectivism to say something on a strictly Objectivist basis.

That's OK. We don't claim to speak for Objectivism on THE FORUM. We just try to apply it. Stating the facts and the evidence for your opinion are necessary. Quoting something Ayn Rand wrote is nice if it's relevant, but that's not necessary.