Civil versus Criminal Law

In the link you posted which examines the difference between civil law and criminal law right at the bottom of the table:

Case filed by: Private party

Whereas criminal charges are by government. It's interesting that immigration violations as well as some state's red light camera and other automated enforcement is filed as a civil law case. By the government, which is a pretty huge gaping hole in your position.

As I said, immigration violations are called civil by the government. And that is just plain wrong.

That's just ridiculous and the law should probably be changed to prevent the government using such a low standard for prosecution of wrongdoers.

The government has ultimate power, meaning they can spend your own tax money freely to try to convict you, and they do not run out of money which you undoubtedly will defending a big case.

This is why the government has to meet a higher standard, they have your and my money to hassle us with. This is right that they should have to obtain an unanimous verdict:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt": Burden of proof is always on the state/government.

I don't like when my legal opponents skip steps, and this is a pretty gaping skipping of steps if you ask me.

Well I certainly gave you an opening with that link. However, I suspect that you did not go any further into it because there were other viewpoints you could have read.

Consider this link
http://members.mobar.org/civics/DifferencesCivilCrim.htm

Based on this I would ask if all government "laws" are "criminal" and of course the answer is no. There are huge numbers of civil statutes on the books. Aren't parking tickets civil offenses?

Be that as it may, we are aware (based on your comments over the years) that it is your desire for people to be able to "face their accuser" when faced with automated ticketing enforcement. But, the fact remains that they are civil offenses - just like immigration laws are civil.

This may be in fact what you would want, but let's say do a thought experiment that says that immigration was a criminal matter. Since we would impose punishment, we would imprison those found guilty and incur the costs of housing them for their sentence.

Wait - you will say, just sent them home. But that is what the civil result would be.

an arrest or the act of being detained. If you are held against your will or forcefully removed from the USA to Mexico (for example) how can it be a civil matter?

I am finding this thread funny because to me you both are trying to pick fly crap out out of a black pepper jar. Neither one of you will concede each others points but will try to convince the other that you are right.
You two can post ideas until the cows come home but unless you can prove that the cameras are fixed, you will pay the fine irregardless if it is civil or criminal. I one would have to prove they are not the norm. know that in Iowa they are legal for the Iowa Supreme Court said so.
If one wants to fight it, first buy a stop watch and a movie camera and film and time the lights throughout the city and see if there is a discrepancy. If not then you are out of luck.

@kurzemnieks, the discussion with steevo got started because of the claim of a right to "face your accuser". I noted that the right to face your accuser is in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and relates to criminal prosecutions - not civil matters.

Steevo responded that a number of offenses should be "criminal" and cited, in particular, immigration. I suppose steevo also feels red light tickets should be considered criminal in order that one could face the accuser. But - steevo will let us know.

Over the years, I found about 10 times that steevo has commented wanted or claimed a right to "face" the accuser.

DanielT said in node 28351 at comment 182899

I refuse to discuss immigration issues with anyone unless I have a baseball bat to make a point since I am an immigrant and know that my father filled out 365 documents so we could enter the USA. I do remember entering NY Harbor and my mother lifting me up to the porthole to see the Statue of Liberty and telling me "We are Free".
I have no problem with Hispanics since the USA stole their territory and I know Davy Crockett was not a Mexican fighting for freedom.
To those who want to see their accuser of running a red light in person, they can view the video for it is the accuser and the police officer is only doing the legwork. This is no different than a security camera filming a break in and the officer arresting the people on the video.

Okay.

Better get your baseball bat ready

Your father filled out forms and immigrated to the US legally, not by running the border and hiding forevermore like some others have done.

Your statement about hispanics is unfounded. If Mexico wants to declare war on the US and take over the land they claim there is a way to do that. But instead they are exporting their poverty to us so we get to deal with it. And guess what, it costs hundreds of billions of dollars.

We're paying for it, for education for students that are owed an education but not by us.

By insurance rates since the illegal alien population from south of the border tends to not carry auto insurance. So they run if they get in an accident. It's come out here in LA that nearly all the hit and runs are non licensed illegal aliens. The governor's solution? Give them licenses. A clear example of half thinking if you ask me.

By free healthcare that neither of us could get, but all you have to do is show up at a hospital with no ID and speak only spanish and you can get whatever you need. Whereas you or I would have the crap billed out of us until we have to go bankrupt on the medical bills.

There, now this thread is hijacked too. Heh.

My position is that the government uses civil laws instead of criminal because of expediency, even in cases where that is improper.

In California red light tickets are indeed infractions, where the government is prosecuting you, there are indeed points on your license, and there must be a clear picture of the driver's face. If the face is not identifiable the citation is not issued, and there must be a sworn police officer to sign it. I have known the officer that used to sign them in Fullerton, CA for 30 years and we discussed this matter.

This is a contrast to how the tickets were issued in Baltimore, which is what the original thread was about. I prefer the California system.

Fat chance on that. If they have to jump through hoops they will just dismiss that thing, it happens all the time in places where the infraction is civil. But not here in California. You face an actual officer who will try to use automated evidence against you in court. Since that can be quite difficult you mostly find they don't show up if it gets to court, and you win by default. That's in California.

@Steevo, Are you saying that a traffic infraction in California is a criminal offense?

Well, not exactly sure. I will call and find out. For example they are not issued to the vehicle owner, only to the driver. If the picture is not clear, no ticket. If the picture is not you, no ticket. They try to get you to weasel out whom the driver is but no person is forced to testify against another person by mail in these matters.

I know it's much more deliberate than those goofy speed camera tickets Arizona got rid of. Those were mostly illegal. It was just a pure money grab.

I think the Baltimore ones we were discussing were pure civil. But I would have to read the thread.

I much prefer a ticket being issued to a person, who is in the picture, and you can just say "That's not me". I think in some areas it goes to the vehicle owner. That is improper. A vehicle cannot violate the law, it's impossible.

With this logic then explain that ticket on the windshield for illegal or overtime parking. A police officer will not wait for the offender to return.

Haha. Touche! Except for a parking infraction, for which the driver is not blamed, gets no license points, and will never get sent to jail, unless of course you have a hell of a lot of unpaid parking tickets. If you were prosecuted for that it would not be for the parking, it would be for the unpaid tickets.

In fact, if your car is stolen, reported stolen, and then gets parking tickets, you are not blamed and will not have to pay. I have been there. I was not responsible at all for citations for my stolen car after it was reported.

I actually criticized the PD for ticketing a stolen car for parking where they could have easily recovered the car in the same time. They feigned that they "didn't check to see if a vehicle was stolen when citing for parking.". I find that an unbelievably lame excuse.

But then, I always say, if you want low performance get the government to do it.

I left a message for the officer I have known for 30 years who used to sign the red light camera tickets personally. A Captain now at Fullerton PD.

The Captain just called me back. In California the automated enforcement tickets are issued to the driver, not the car owner. No civil tickets. Criminal infractions. There has to be a clear picture of the driver, or no citation.

She said if the jurisdiction made those citations civil then they are in her opinion a money grab, like I said. If there are points on the license and the purported wrongdoer has certain rights that is a much cleaner enforcement matter.

She of course also mentioned that the purpose of the cameras is safety not a money grab. I realize the government and the vendors keep repeating that but I consider that preposterous.

Let me just say this: If all the money paid for automated enforcement could *only* be used for affordable housing, none to run the cameras, none to pay vendors, none for courts or police, their hands would be clean. As things are in some jurisdictions, their hands are dirty.

If you need more money for government the honest thing is to raise taxes and then at election time the elected officials who did so can defend their actions. If they can't they won't be re elected. It's how the system is supposed to work.

Thanks for following up.

If they are criminal, then the sixth amendment would apply.

So, also does

In Des Moines you are charged as a civil breakage of the law. If you are an Iowa citizen then you will be issued a ticket and if the driver of the car does not pay the fine then he/she will not be able to renew license of the car and owners driver license. If that does not suffice tthe owners tax returns will be garnished then and when that is satisfied then the owner must retake the drivers test to get a new license.
We had a report from the local newspaper of who was speeding through Iowa on the Interstates and found that the majority stopped were from Minnesota.
I for my hobby am building a 6 foot long RC model of the Delta Queen river boat in my basement which should be ready to run next spring. As a relaxing spot I listen to one of my three radio scanners to hear what is happening in the city while I work.
Yesterday the police set up radar on I235 in the 55mph zone and during the time I listened the police could not keep up so they only stopped people over 70mph and they were still busy because they did not have enough vehicles. I wish they had more cameras.

Driving I-80 between Davenport & Des Moines in the winter is like competing in a demolition derby. On two occasions I have seen more than 50 cars & semis in the ditches.
I don't believe more cameras are the answer.

Anybody remember when speeding was a civil infraction? One of the little known main reason it was originally changed to a criminal offense stems from - you guessed it - revenue. When they wanted to significantly raise the fines, they had to go the criminal route. Now, there are other reasons to make it a criminal offense and to my knowledge in every state it is now a criminal offense.

Civil has a lower burden of proof, preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt and less rights for the victim of the money grab, simple!!

You had to have a Sponsor who was financially responsible for you and if you were a sucking drag on society your sponsor had to pay your way back to your originating country, no food stamps or free money, where did we go wrong??

I recognize that this thread has been somewhat hijacked or gone off in a few directions.

The title however does leave it open for people to use a variety of examples to support whatever point they would like to make regarding Civil versus Criminal Law.

So, at this time, instead of taking a strong moderation stance, I would like to simply remind everyone that the community here at POI Factory is diverse. Please be considerate when posting on subjects that may be of a sensitive nature. If a post angers you, please step away from the keyboard for a bit if need be.

Here is a link to forum posting rules.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28855

~Angela

Windwalker is a youngster and should respect his elders.

When we came to US you had to earn your Citizenship. I could have gotten mine when my Mom got hers but she insisted I go the full process, test, demonstrate language, Presidents and the Preamble. So yes illegals should be Criminal, not civil, they are stealing benefits that we have to pay for!! Come to Arizona and see what we have to deal with!

Now traffic Cams are Civil to slant the favor to the Cam company and the revenue grabbers. Immigration does not apply in this argument, apples and oranges.

If you had told us you were coming, I maybe could have met you at the border and welcomed you to the USA.
To many people use such buzz words as you do calling them "revenue grabbers" and"slant the favor to the Cam company".
You are finding a minority of discrepancies in camera usage and claiming that all cameras are used the same way. I do not throw away the whole bushel just because of one bad one.
I do not really care about cameras for only the idiots or careless speeding or running lights pay the fine and I know where the cameras are.

The Iowa camera tickets are like the Arizona tickets. Only applicable to Iowa citizens, people from other states are essentially exempt.

Now does that sound right to you? Shouldn't the law be applied equally to all lawbreakers?

Why should Iowans be forced to obey laws that people from other states can ignore?

Why wouldn't that violate your right to equal protection under the law afforded you by the 14th amendment?

You see, when the government tries to take shortcuts with our rights look at what happens.

I don't want to live in a world where Minnesotans can speed through Iowa with impunity while Iowans have to obey the laws.

And I shouldn't have to.

The camera tickets should be issued to the driver. If they don't know whom the driver is and can't find out there should be no ticket.

But that's too *hard* for the sleazy camera companies and government agencies. So they have a scheme to make it easier for them to grab money, but it only works a little and only by violating the rights of large groups of citizens.

I don't like that.

Actually it is Minnesotans that should complain because a recent survey of cars stopped by the state patrol in Iowa, a majority were from Minnesota. To gather revenue, they were stopping cars going only 4 miles per hour over the speed limit. An Iowan getting a ticket from a camera only pays a fine but a Minnesotan stopped by police gets a blemish on his his record. Iowans also get that blemish but they got to drive faster.

No where in the Constitution can I find any reference to where a large group of citizens have a right to speed or run red lights. I suggest to some people That they read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution where it gives the states the right to make laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution.

Are parking tickets in California criminal or civil?

Interesting use of the buzz word "feigned" - one meaning of which is "Make believe with the intent to deceive"

Did you do any investigation into how the parking tickets were issued? In my city, there are people walking the downtown who give out parking tickets (they walk rather than double park next to a car at an expired meter). Unless one is willing to pay for the technology for these meter officers to be able to access a database with some kind of handheld, then I would not expect them to know if a car was stolen or not.

I am pretty sure they carry a police radio.
"Wants, warrants, Mary James Frank 1 2 3 "

The applicable Section of the 14th Amendment is:

I would be interested in your interpretation of how these words in the 14th Amendment apply.

Maybe this will assuage your concern.

http://autos.aol.com/article/out-of-state-speeding-ticket/

With the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution giving the states certain rights and one part of the Constitution cannot undo another, the states have the right to govern traffic within their borders. Until those NINE WISE JUDGES in Washington take up issues about traffic cameras everything is legal.

That's quite a distortion of what you said earlier.
Are you trying to recant, or what?

I think it's already evident. I mentioned Arizona speed cameras and the civil infractions, because they were easier to enforce on Arizonans. Not on anyone else however.

Why should a state enforce a law on their own citizens that they cannot because of the type of law they chose to apply enforce on those from another state?

Why is that OK? We should be able to count on the government enforcing the laws on all lawbreakers equally, as guaranteed by the constitution.

Glad you liked it. You have a lower expectation of government performance than I do. You likely will be disappointed less than I.

I stand by my statement. Parking tickets are issued against the vehicle, they are not like moving violations, nor should they be.

So as the registered owner you will be responsible for your parking tickets.

The exception being if the vehicle is reported stolen. That is consistent with justice.

There are no criminal parking tickets and you feign ignorance by saying that. You know as well as I do that a vehicle cannot park itself illegally nor is it possible to criminally convict an unknown driver for parking. There is just no evidence who parked that vehicle. There rarely is any such evidence. And it's not needed.

Similarly a gun cannot kill by itself and we need not have laws allowing prosecution of an inanimate object for murder.

It makes as much sense as blaming airplanes for 9/11.

Steevo -
there are 'criminal' parking tickets, actually it's when a person accumulates a lot of them, sometimes call 'scofflaws'.

I posted a link to a newspaper article about Washington DC being accused of issuing parking tickets before the time ran out, and before the parking lane became a traffic lane.

I think the criminal part is by not paying them. Not the tickets themselves.

You use the term "government" very loosely here.

You speak of guarantees by the Constitution. Please look at the word "States" in this Amendment

It is not a question of what you and I would "like".

I hope you will give us your understanding of how the 14th amendment applies to drivers from Iowa and Minnesota. And, since you include Arizona, comment on that state also.

I guess you have me baffled here.
Why in the world should drivers from Minnesota, Iowa, or Arizona not receive equal treatment when in other states?

Why is it OK for the government of Arizona to crassly enforce speed laws on their own citizens where citizens of another state can break the law with impunity?

That's exactly what happened in Arizona, by the way, and that's exactly what the poster in this thread said was going on in Iowa. I have no information that it's true, it was his allegation. I read here that it was going on in Arizona, and I experienced it first hand in Arizona.

Is it your position that the 14th amendment allows unequal treatment? I don't think anyone has ever alleged that.

If you want to make a point feel free to do so and I will argue it.

But it's probably more cost and paperwork than it's worth to pursue out of state speeders if they don't pay so why bother writing the ticket? I mean, let's be honest, it's not like the Crown Jewels got stolen...right? I appreciate your sense of fairness but life is as much about being practical...JM2CYMMV

We always thought police were more prone to issue tickets to out of state vehicles because we would be unlikely to drive all the way back there to contest the ticket. It would just be cheaper to pay it.

The difference is a citation issued by a law enforcement officer becomes a criminal complaint. A citation issued by an ATE unit becomes a civil complaint. Just as a civil judgement against a person in one state may not be binding in another. The second state was not a party to the complaint so it has no duty to enforce the claim.

How does Florida Turnpike bill out of state drivers that do not have Sun Pass?

Next question.

How is the collection enforced?

thinking the same.

the most of the states have agreed to an interstate compact on driver license and penalties, the only state I remember not belonging to it was Michigan, if you were from out of state and received a moving violation(speeding ticket) you had to either appear before judge/JP or supply a monetary bond before you could proceed.

I thought Arizona was the lone holdout on reciprocity agreements. It may be why AZ doesn't prosecute oos violators.

Back in the early 60's I was nabbed on radar. I had to follow the trooper to a Justice of the Peace. I wanted to plead not guilty. The JP said in that case the bail is twice the amount of the fine. The trial would be the following day, but if the trooper was unavailable, the trial would be the next available day.
Easy decision. Pay the fine.

Steevo, your reply below indicates to me that you had not read the words of the 14th amendment carefully and thought through how it operates in conjunction with the 10th Amendment which says

So, you continued your argument about equal treatment when in other states by saying.

I will agree that equal treatment when in other states [emphasis added] is required.

However, it is my position that the 14th Amendment allows unequal treatment in many circumstances.

I have asked you several times to "interpret" your understanding of the 14th Amendment and you have not done so. You have clung to the words "equal protection" as if those words override all other provisions of the Constitution as amended.

Now, I will ask you to think about issues in the news today like Gay Marriage. Some states allow it. But if a gay couple moves to a state that does not, then issues like medical rights for the partners arise. Estate issues arise in the event of the death of one of the partners. I use this only as an illustration of "unequal treatment" state by state and ask that you nor anyone else get on a soapbox one way or the other since the topic is politically charged.

When a driver from Minnesota is in Iowa, then the laws of Iowa apply to that driver because such driver is within the jurisdiction of Iowa.

Spokybob gave us an example from the 60's as to how that jurisdiction applied applied to him.

But, if a driver from Minnesota gets a ticket in Iowa while driving through and returns to Minnesota, that driver is no longer in the jurisdiction of Iowa. If the person declines to pay what was a valid citation in Iowa, then that person has compounded the breaking of Iowa law. The problem for Iowa becomes the lack of enforcement powers

That circumstance occurs all the time and is why I asked you to read
http://autos.aol.com/article/out-of-state-speeding-ticket/

Let's say that you were given the magic power and were able to standardize all of the laws of all of the states as you seem to want to do in matters of automated traffic enforcement. Just how are you going to decide which of all of types of laws will become the standard? What will your enforcement mechanisms be?