In Keene district Court today Mike Barskey of Derry had a trial related to a speeding ticket given by Swanzey Police. Judge Burke found Barskey guilty and imposed a $200 fine of which Mike stated he will not pay. Judge Burke gave Mike 30 days to pay the fine.
Recent Forum Posts
- My Interview on CoinSpice's Podcast September 16, 2019 @FTL_Ian
- Do you really want freedom ? Independence September 15, 2019 @truthvsstate
- Hey (Seth from California) September 13, 2019 @themastermind
- Stellar Lumens September 13, 2019 @minifang
- "Red Flag" Laws Should Be a Red Flag September 10, 2019 @Thee-Anarchist
Help Free Keene
We accept cryptocurrency contributions!
Bitcoin (BTC): 1NueeQ8rLSobgaeyKC5CciPZqNMvmcwTup
Bitcoin Cash (BCH): qz0g6z8tlzdcd82uheylnx49j42tgp4cfsxdffwzau
DASH: XshMCgL752pXYu5NWo9TQTaNBsJfEuKowy
FK is also now accepting DOZENS of Altcoins, thanks to ShapeShift.io:
You can contribute with paypal here.
Bitcoin (BTC): 1NueeQ8rLSobgaeyKC5CciPZqNMvmcwTup
Bitcoin Cash (BCH): qz0g6z8tlzdcd82uheylnx49j42tgp4cfsxdffwzau
DASH: XshMCgL752pXYu5NWo9TQTaNBsJfEuKowy
FK is also now accepting DOZENS of Altcoins, thanks to ShapeShift.io:
You can contribute with paypal here.
Other Cool Sites
Did he get the usual 'You can pay in a week or report to the House of Corrections'?
No, it was a little different this time. He asked if I had the $200 to pay today. I said I would not pay it. He said I'll give you 30 days to pay. I said I did not want 30 days, that I would not pay the govt money. He said he still would give me 30 days, and I interrupted him and said that I did not need 30 days, that I already made my decision. He gave me 30 days anyway and said that if I don't pay by then, "a bench warrant may or may not be issued for my arrest."
I was expecting the usual "report to jail on Monday" but govt did something arbitrary once again.
Sorry to hear that you were hit for the latest round of the driving tax known as "speeding tickets." If the state were even remotely interested in maintaining credibility for such a thing then they wouldn't use the fines for revenue.
Last week I received a "speeding ticket" myself, although in my opinion, anyone who considers going 34 miles/hour on an open industrial road "speeding" should have their head examined. The police officer actually apologized to me and told me that he gets tickets sometimes also and he knows that "it sucks." That didn't stop him from giving me one though. I just couldn't believe that he was serious about it.
Well, I am glad he did not threaten to take your car. The problem though with traffic tickets, especially speeding tickets, is that the insurance company will get more of your money, through government force. Unless you are planning on not carrying insurance.
@Brodie: Only if you have auto insurance. 🙂
That's not the only problem with traffic tickets, of course.
Oh, most definitely it is not the only problem. I was meant to say that even if you do not pay the state fine, you still would have to pay more for insurance, if you get it.
BTW Mike, have you watched Marc Stevens' videos about beating a traffic ticket or read his book Adventures in Legal Land?
Ah, so, if you do not pay the fine, he may have your license suspended, at which point they can then throw you in jail anytime they pull you over. What a joke. I sure hope me, my wife and child can move up there to join you guys and gals in the evolution!
Man, they never stop hounding and criminalizing people just seeking to live in peaceful life. Kudos to you Mike Barskey for not obediently bowing to their wishes even when refusing to do so is an unpopular and often misunderstood position to advocate.
This is a good opportunity to look into the arbitrariness and the injustice of that speed laws create in people's lives. Starting with frequently asked questions:
Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.
Q. Wouldn't everyone drive faster if the speed limit was raised?
A. No, the majority of drivers will not go faster than what they feel is comfortable and safe regardless of the speed limit. For example, an 18-month study following an increase in the speed limit along the New York Thruway from 55 to 65 mph, determined that the average speed of traffic, 68 mph, remained the same. Even a national study conducted by Federal Highway Administration also concluded that raising or lowering the speed limit had practically no effect on actual travel speeds.
Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
Myth: Speed limits can and should be used to control overall traffic speeds. This myth haunts us like bad breath after a night of beer, pizza, and cigars. Speed limits have virtually no influence on regulating general traffic speeds.* The only legitimate function of speed limits is to delineate at what point reasonably competent drivers exceed the safe speed for a given roadway. If the speed limit is properly set, it can serve as a useful form of information as well as a "trigger" for enforcement action. The speed limit will only function if it is set to reflect prevailing speeds. For too long we have suffered under the cart before the horse illusion that speed limits can dictate prevailing speeds. We have just concluded a 22-year-long experiment that has unequivocally proven that speed limits do not determine traffic speeds.
Rural speed limits did not come into wide use until after the Second World War. The early motivation was largely a desire to curtail true "high flyers" and to take some of the subjectivity out of speed enforcement. Reasonable and prudent has great allure until the local sheriff decides anything over 45 mph is imprudent. Motorists wanted a benchmark almost as bad as did the police and the courts.
The ensuing expansion of speed limits was not a smooth and seamless process, but from it came research that is just as valid today as it was in the 1950's. The vast majority of drivers can be expected to travel at safe and reasonable speeds, regardless of posted speed limits. The faster group of drivers, still driving at reasonable speeds (i.e. the 85th to 90th percentile), will experience the fewest accidents per mile driven. Those drivers traveling significantly slower or significantly faster than the 85th percentile group experience far more accidents.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/the-tru…
Traffic engineering experts have found that most of us drive at speeds we feel are safe and comfortable for the existing conditions. If it’s clear and sunny we drive faster. If it’s raining or snowing we slow down. If we’re on a multi-lane Interstate we speed up. If we’re on a city street or winding country road we slow down. This isn’t magic, it’s just self-preservation and common sense at work.
http://www.motorists.org/editorials/home/why-dont…
Hans Monderman, a Dutch traffic engineer, said that there is always be some idiots that will drive recklessly and kill themselves and no laws will stop them. Driver's insurance protects us from the risk of such drivers, not the unnaturally low, corrupt speed laws that fill the cops' pockets with citizen's obediently-paid fines.
Revenue Sets Speed Limits, Not Safety
Most highway speed limits in the USA are posted between the 30th and 50th percentile of free-flowing traffic speeds under good conditions. This means that posted limits arbitrarily define 50% to 70% of all drivers as violators. Speed limits should not be arbitrarily set by the government which more often than not has revenue motives and are set by bureaucrats frequently very ill-informed about a speed limits' relationship to motorist safety.
Jim Baxter, President of the National Motorists Association, said "It is not exactly a well kept secret that many traffic laws, enforcement practices, and traffic courts are more about generating revenue and political posturing, than they are about traffic safety."
One example is the state of Virginia which deliberately underposts speed limits to collect millions in additional funds from motorists who are driving safely on interstate highways. The exact same conduct that is automatically "reckless" in Virginia is legal in Texas.
Montana's No Speed Limit Safety Paradox
The counter-intuitive but empirical facts strongly question the safety and effectiveness of the State-intervention on the roadways.
Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits:
1. Fatal accident rates on these highways reached an all time low in modern times.
2. On 2 lane highways with no posted limits the frequency of multiple vehicle accidents dropped 5 percent.
3. Seat belt usage rose to 88% percent, with only a secondary enforcement law.
4. Posted limits and their enforcement, had either no or a negative effect on traffic safety.
5. As predicted by the engineering models, traffic speeds did not significantly change and remained consistent with other western states with like conditions.
6. The people of Montana and its visitors continued to drive at speeds they were comfortable with, which were often speeds lower than their counter parts on high density urban freeways* with low posted limits.
7. The theory behind posting speed limits on this classification of road is to reduce conflicts in traffic flow, thereby reducing accidents. The paradox is that the desired effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them.
http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/monta…
Oh great so the penalty for not caving to the fine is not only going to jail but also getting sent to jail violently at some random unexpected time.
This Burke guy is devious.
I've read all the free stuff on the internet he posts, including videos. I think its just snakeoil.
@Brodie: I hope you and your family can move up here and work towards liberty, too!
@George: I think you're right. And it sucks. 🙂 🙁
@JZacker; I haven't read it, and have no intent to. I love that Marc Stevens does what he does, and that tons of people do, too. But my personal experience has shown me that judges (and cops) disregard evidence and their own rules whenever convenient. So I don't bother using the court system any more. I could jump through their hoops and provide a good argument in their format, and *still* I'd have to luck into getting a just verdict (maybe the judge is in a bad mood, maybe he's biased because he doesn't like the group I belong to, etc.)
nothing new to see here…..another wannabee activist acting ignorant and childish wasting taxpayer dollars and achieving nothing. Good job loser!
BACK TO YER BRIDGE!!!
BACK TO YER FANTASY SOCIETY
Do you even live in Keene LPVIPER?
No
@Read
"Wanna-be activist"? I'd say this more than qualifies him as an "activist."
I don't understand, of what was he acting "ignorant"?
On another note, if you hate Free Staters so much, why don't you simply live in the 99.9999% of the country that isn't active about liberty? Or simply stay put and go happily about your life without harassing and insulting them. Unlike pretty much everyone else, we have no interest in stealing from you or coercing you to do anything.
Why are you so angry?
These pointless stunts that result in jail time are being payed by me (taxpayer). So either your too dumb to realize your stealing from me or you dont give a fuck about me.
Read, nobody wants to be pulled over by the police or jailed. Be angry at the police officers who sign up to put peaceful people in jail for victimless crimes. They are the ones who waste your tax dollars.
you idiot!
I said stunts….plural!(which I assume you understood, but chose to hide behind the issue with your reply).
Let me get this straight: Mike was harassed by a cop, hauled into court, and threatened with imprisonment. In spite of his circumstances, he had the stones to defy the orders of the "judge."
And from these facts you concluded that Mike is stealing from you?
How many Free Staters have been to your door lookin for loot, read?
I'm gonna flip a guess and say 'Zero'.
So take that 'free staters are stealing my money' crap and go lay down
Blabbing total nonsense can never be mistaken for having a take.
If I was you, I'd be pissed at the people who are taking your precious money and wasting it on peaceful people who are making the point that the people who are stealing your money are wasting it!
@Mike, oh, do not get me wrong. Marc Stevens even says, multiple times in his book, that no matter what you do, they may still find you guilty. But using his strategy, they expose themselves for the frauds they are, and are forced to show that their only "authority" is force. Regardless, I find it a very interesting book, if not for the only thing that he shows how inconsistent their own system is.
@JZacker, snakeoil? He never claims, in his book, that there is any sure fire way of "winning". He just says he is trying to minimize the damage.
Read, I guarantee you Mike did not pull himself over, or drag himself into court, nor will he throw himself in jail. Way to blame the victim. You and Mike are both victims — you loose money, mike looses money and time. The perp is the nutso judge and cop, extracting money not to compensate victims (which don't exist), but to fund their own organization.
By "stunts" I wasn't reffering to this particular incident but rather one of the countless "protests" which acomplished nothing but wasted tax payer dollar.
Just want to press the rewind here for a second. If you get a speeding ticket, why would that cause your insurance (IF you have it) to go up? And if it does go up, how is that the government's fault? Mind you, I'm not taking sides here, but it LOOKS like the insurance company is taking advantage of the law to squeeze a little more money out of the customer. And IF all of those above conditions are true, then why in the world would someone speed? Forget the government and the ticket and related fines, etc, I would be more annoyed at the higher insurance rate. Over time, that would be more likely to equal more money. Feel free to spray me with napalm, it won't hurt my feelings. Also, thanks for the math practice. I needed it.
@Brodie I think he puts forth a position of expertise. But his methods for getting oneself out of a ticket are not reliable. Sure, he makes no 'guarantee'. But does anyone know first-hand that his methods have succeeded?
Minimize the damage? In what way does he do that? You still lose the case and get a fine. Where is the minimization?
Read: Maybe you should stop your government from jailing these attention whores, so you don't have to pay taxes to keep them in prison.
They obviously don't care about your system of government and will waste taxpayers money on prison if you let them. So lets just not send them to prison for this stupid stuff.
Maybe if you wrote the judge or if run for office you could stop mike from stealing from you.
It's your own fault if you don't change your system, because that is all these attention whores are trying to do.
"Read" –
Your absolutely right. Taxpayers are forced to pay for the government's inefficient system. To whatever extent you pay taxes you serve as the whipping boy for government's mistakes and flawed design.
Yet with a religious zeal you attack people pointing out flaws and defend the church of the state's ineffectiveness.
Who's the fool?
Speeding is a public safety issue and a dangerous one at that. Speeding is not a victimless crime. When you speed, you exponentially increase the likelihood of a collision. This is well researched, well established, and well supported by years of traffic and safety studies. Look it up. Speeding is just as dangerous as driving drunk and texting while driving.
Mike is no victim, he was violating a simple traffic law that is in place for safety. I will also point out that when his license is suspended for failure to pay, and he is arrested for driving without a license, he is not being an activist, he is following a path that many people have taken.
I was not aware the free staters had such a callous disregard for public safety.
I thought the purpose of the government was to keep its citizens safe. Now the government is enforcing a safety law and the free-staters are crying violence.
Next, I suppose they will cry violence when a cop tells them not to bike on the sidewalk on Main Street. An annoying, often broken, but essential law to protect the safety of pedestrians.
@Lee, the insurance company raises your rates because their statistics show that people who get speeding tickets are more likely to get into an accident.
@JZacker, Marc Stevens does claim that he has "won" cases using his method. I myself do not know if going through all of the hassle is really worth it though. However, I do think it is worth asking a couple of simple questions to expose their fraud in front of other people. Not everyone in the court room is a libertarian. Why not ask the cop, "by what authority did you issue the citation?" He may reply, "the state". At which point you ask, "and how did the State obtain this authority". The policeman will probably respond, "the people". Then you ask, "do you have any evidence of the how, when, and where it was obtained"? This is not one of Marc's lines of questioning, but I would still love to see it asked.
@&rnld, when I speed, who is the victim? You are suggesting that speeding creates a potential victim. That is a ridiculous argument. Using your line of reasoning, living creates a possible victim. No, there has to be an actual victim, and if you think there is one by speeding, then you live in fantasy land, not reality.
@&rnld
There are too many absurdities and inconsistencies within your post to address here, but I will do my best.
There is nothing inherently dangerous about speeding, since the speeds that are considered speeding are arbitrary and constantly changing. Suppose the same road is designated 50MPH one year, then 30MPH the next year, then 40MPH the year after that. Are you really saying that somebody going 40MPH on that same road year after year is safe and responsible the first year, unsafe and criminal the next year, and then pushing safety to the breaking point the year after? How can that be? It is the same action on the same road under the same conditions year after year.
I have looked into the issue, and speeding is not inherently unsafe, contrary to your claim. In fact I have read much which suggests that speeding can sometimes be more safe and reduce accidents under some conditions. What usually causes accidents and injuries is congestion, confusion, and constant changes in speed, which speed limits tend to increase. Have you ever heard that most accidents occur near one's home? That's because residential areas are subject to the most speed limits, red lights, stop signs, etc. which cause fluctuations, unnatural speeds, and congestion.
Your assertion that "speeding is as dangerous as drunk driving" is especially ludicrous and unfounded, again, since what constitutes speeding is entirely arbitrary. Are you really saying that going 36MPH in a 35MPH zone is "as dangerous as" driving severely intoxicated? Obviously it isn't.
Finally, as I already pointed out earlier and you failed to address entirely, if this really were a safety issue, why do the fines go directly into state revenue? If the state were truly interested in enforcing public safety and making people respect the traffic laws, there are any number of other non-financial systems they could use to deter speeding and not be so transparently conflicted in its interests. Even if it did use financial means, the responsible thing to do would be to simply give the money to charities or some other non-treasury fund. As it exists right now, the state has a financial incentive to give out as many tickets as possible.
&RNLD,
The issues you are concerned with would be solved if roads were owned and funded voluntarily, privately or by members of community organizations. Each road owner could set rules for use of that road, and you'd be free to use whichever road(s) meet your needs and have acceptable rules.
As it is, the government has no right to create arbitrary rules over roads, because they are not its legitimate property — the have been funded by extortion and theft. What's more, we have no options, because there is a government enforced monopoly. Your desire for strict rules, and Mike's desire for more freedom only clash because you are jammed into the same monopolistic system. It would be as if all denominations were forced to attend one government sponsored church, or it were mandated that everyone could only have one kind of ice cream. Your desire for butterscotch and my desire for chocolate could coexist just fine — but not in a government forced monopoly. In that unfortunate context, we might become become bitter political enemies — my desire for chocolate could only come at the expense of your desire for butterscotch.
Government causes conflict in this way in many arenas, not just roads. Consider government licensed marriages, government licensed business, government mandated color schemes, government funded health care, government funded abortion, war, etc, etc, ad absurdum.
We all conflict in these areas, because we are not each free to choose where to invest our own time and money — we are forced into one sized fits all solutions. We must all wrestle and fight over the wheel of the one ship of state — rather than be free to steer our own ships, as it should be.
I hereby decree that all shall live in 9X7 rooms with padded white walls, and eat fortified mush all of their days. If it saves only one life, it will be worth it!
@&rnld
If speeding is inherently dangerous, how do you explain that the sections of the European autobahn without speed limits are just as safe as the sections with speed limits?
I see where youre coming fron Dan but thats not the best example. Roads in a free market would still have speed limits, and the ones that could handle no limit wouldnt be restricted by 'state' laws. The reason the no limit autobahn is safe is because everybody knows how it goes down there and the road is built to handle those kinds of speeds.
Road owners and users could agree on a safe speed to generally use a certain road, and those being reckless would either damage someone and have to pay for it, or be ostracized by the road owners and users. Liberty and a complete lack of restriction do not necessarily follow one another when a myriad of property owners all have their own rules for their respective properties.
I understand, LPVIPER, I was simply trying to refute some of his blanket statements such as that acts like "speeding" are inherently dangerous, which he then goes on to say justifies state interventionism to protect people. Even if it were inherently dangerous, I agree that the state should not intervene, but the fact that he is wrong about even that premise shows that he should reevaluate some of his assumptions about government.
That's one of the hardest things to get to with people, is the idea that people don't need 'authorities', that those who claim to be 'authorities' are just people like you and me, and that any action taken by such people will be arbitrary by definition, because no one man can possibly know what is best for 3 others, let alone 3,000.
@Dan:
Speeding as a victimless crime? How about after a person who is traveling too fast to stop at a stop sign T-Bones your car? Then is it a victimless crime? Does that mean I was not actually a victim? My arm not actually broken, my car not totaled? The driver of the other car was cited for speeding and failure to stop. If the driver had not been speeding, they would not have skidded through the intersection into my car.
So as a result of speeding, my person and my private property was damaged. Oh, and the other driver did not have insurance. Luckily, I did, otherwise, I would have been out a lot of money, as the other driver (uninjured, naturally) still has not paid the entire cost they were found liable for. That was 3 years ago.
As a result of the accident, I was not able to play guitar (one of my means of making money) for six months. I still have nerve problems in my left hand (My fret hand) as a result of the accident. My doctor (who has a license to practice medicine that is regulated by the state) says I am developing arthritis as result of this accident. At my current rate, I will be unable to play guitar within two to three years.
Yeah, I guess you are right, no victim.
As for the Autobahn (a massive public works project by the way): it is not any safer. This is well documented and well supported.
Dan, if you want to speed, be my guest. Just don't whine when you are pulled over and ticketed, and I hope that you do not have the same experience I have had, on any end of a collision. It is a traumatic and painful experience. I hope you choose to wear a seatbelt.
I would hope that when any person gets behind the wheel of a piece of steel capable of moving at high speeds, the person take responsibility for their actions and anticipate the possibility of a collision. I believe personal responsibility is one of the main foundations of the Free State movement, and here is an example where many of the writers seem to be shirking their responsibilities in regards to driving safely.
Criminalizing a motorist with just the ,b>possibility of causing a crime—like the possibility of ramming into another vehicle—without the motorist actually committing the crime before the fact is absurd, unjust and bringing the once fictional fears of a Orweillian police state—like the Thought Police surveilling people in search for possibility of criminal intent to commit a crime in the future—and bringing them into actual practice. It is horrifying. Now, I am not equating a mere speedy driver with criminal intent but if such action by today's cops continues, the question of such a distinction is indistinguisable and moot—whether or not you have criminal or intent or not is irrelevant, you will still made one regardless.
You're talking about speeding plus some other occurrence.
We're talking about speeding alone, on it's inherit merits and demerits.
Mike did not T-bone anyone's car. Not did he cause a collision.
And speeding to such a degree that you cannot control your car already falls under negligent or careless driving.
Negligence being a solid common law basis for persons such as yourself to recover damages.
@&RNLD,
First I want to give you some condolences on your injury and situation. I can not fathom loosing the ability to do something I enjoy due to some one else's negligence. It is stories like yours that make me continue to try to help others using non-violent means to get real justice.
In your collision, the negligent party has been found guilty, yet you have not seen any compensation yet, as you indicate. As a victim twice now, once as the result of the guity party, and once again at the court system who's purpose is not to compensate the victim but to enrich the State, how does that make you feel?
Would you rather see a Justice system rather then a 'Just Us' system? I think you would find a Justice system would be better to have then a 'Just Us' system that you currently are vicimized into supporting. The only advice I can offer is to stop being a victim by giving them money.
Sorry to say, but also I feel that everyone else is correct, vicimless crimes should not be prosicuted. Speeding is a vicimless crime. Damaging someone while speeding isn't a vicimless crime.
Another analogy would be pointing a gun at your head and shooting yourself is a victimless crime, however shooting yourself and killing someone else at the same time is not a victimless crime.
"I don't care to argue anything specific, but you guys are all stupid thieves that make me feel uncomfortable because Everything you say contradicts something I was told by a State employee!"
The pirates that stole your money told you that they were doing good things with the money, so you were okay with it. Then they said that they would take some of your land and turn it into roads, you know, for your benefit, they just needed ownership first.
Then the pirates start persecuting people for not giving over tribute monies or following the pirate law, and you blame the persecuted for stealing from you?
Read and &Rnld: Thanks for coming by today, I hope you either stoked the hatred in your core that you love so much, or actually maybe looked at something differently, even if you eventually reject changing.
I'm sure I speak for most the rest of the regular posters here: We respect you, and we want to help you live free and peacefully interact with your neighbors. Peace and Love is conflicting with Force and Divisiveness, and that may resonate with some of what you thought about the world.
Gov't is Force and Divisiveness by nature, even when they use the gains from those acts to say that they love you, and want Peace. The posters here and members of the FSP recognize an abusive relationship when there is one.
&RNLD, T-boning you is not a victim-less crime. You were the victim, and you should have been compensated by the perpetrator. Unfortunately, I doubt you were compensated. If they did not have the means to pay you, the should be required to work for your benefit until the debt is paid — not just for your vehicle, but for your injuries, and the trauma/hassle.
Also, as noted before, if roads were private, as they should be, the road owners would have the right to post speed limits, and enforce other rules for the use of their property.
I went 66mph on a 65mph highway. Who is the victim? While I await a reasonable answer I shall make myself a cookie.
Hmm. Delicious. Anyone?
SPEEDING!?!?! But there's a LAW against that!! Laws magically make things wrong or right, don't you know that??
YOU THIEVING TERRORIST, STEALING FROM THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HIRE THUGS THAT JUST WANT TO PEACEFULLY ASSESS ARBITRARY FINES!
IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS THEFT – WHICH YOU DO BY WANTING TO BE LEFT ALONE!
Paul, how are you going to "require someone to work for your benefit until the debt is paid"? How do you quantify "trauma/hassle"? How would private road owners enforce their rules? This stuff fascinates me.
I love it when people claim that stopping speeding is a "safety" issue. It's not, and I can prove it:
If speeding is dangerous, then we should stop people from speeding. I can stop 99% of people from speeding overnight. Here is my new law: The fine for speeding shall be $10,000 plus $5,000 per mile per hour over the posted speed limit. If you cannot pay the fine, you will go to debtor's prison at the rate of 6 months for each $1,000. Therefore, if you're caught going 70 in a 55, that's $85,000 or 42 years in jail.
Now, how many people are going to speed with that law in place? If you oppose that law, then you can't claim you really want to stop "dangerous" speeders.
Lee,
If a person has harmed you or your property, and you could not work it out privately, your protection agency would take theirs to a pre-agreed arbitration court, with designated appeals courts as well. The court would be tasked with finding the truth of the situation, and if necessary, ensuring that you are compensated for damages.
I think in place of jail, which rehabilitates no one and only costs the victim money, perpetrators should work to compensate their victims. For violent criminals who are really a threat, a secure environment would need to be used, while those who are not so much of a threat could have a great deal more freedom. This would help perpetrators understand the damages their actions have caused, see their victim as a person, not leave them idle with a bunch of other convicts, forgetting how to work — which directly leads to the high rates of recidivism, and not burden the victim and other innocents with their upkeep.