Speeding in Victoria Questions!

[hello_kitty]

Any help would be great! even if its one question ill still appreciate it!

2)   To what extent do the speeding laws reflect community values, establish codes of conduct and provide a means to resolve disputes?


3)   Describe how the characteristics of an effective law are demonstrated with laws relating to ‘driving over the speed limit’

4)   Describe three advantages and three disadvantages of having laws to regulate ‘speed limits’

5)   ‘Excessive speed’ is a problem in our community. Suggest some possible solutions to this problem.

6)   One suggestion to reduce the incidence of speeding by young drivers is to increase the driving age to 21. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this solution.

7)   Where should the money the government makes from speeding be spent?
        More speeding cameras?

   What is the penalty for someone who is speeding 45 km/h over the speed limit? IS this excessive? Discuss

10)   Why are police given the discretion to issue a warning? IS this fair?

[chrisjb]

Q5. Greater Enforcement, Greater public awareness, raising speed limits (changing the law rather than changing the community)
Q10. Yes, police discression ensures that courts are not flooded with futile cases. No, deciding if someone has broken a law should be the job of the judiciary. On ballance, it's probalby fair.

The rest you should answer yourself otherwise you won't learn (and my answers aren't complete anyway).

[Hellhole]

I might have to disagree with Chris on Q10. I don't particularly find it fair because he uses his own personal biases to come to the conclusion that a warning is more appropriate than a fine. What happens if he pulls his own mother over because of excessive speeding and just gives her a warning? The law should be clear cut, not shades of gray.

[chrisjb]

I might have to disagree with Chris on Q10. I don't particularly find it fair because he uses his own personal biases to come to the conclusion that a warning is more appropriate than a fine. What happens if he pulls his own mother over because of excessive speeding and just gives her a warning? The law should be clear cut, not shades of gray.

In theory this is exactly how it should be and it would be great if it worked like that. Except the courts are flooded with cases already and if every person who was ever seen commiting a crime was arrested/fined then they would be even more flooded. It would also mean there would be lots more studded belt cases around where someone breaks a minor law on a technicality and could end up facing a court/prison sentence/big legal fees/fines/any other sentece.

If you wanna argue in principle then you would win every day of the week (becasue you're quite right that the judiciary should decide and letting police decide leads to corruption) except we don't live in an in principle world and the system simply wouldn't work without some leeway.

One more thing, Post #700

[Hellhole]

I might have to disagree with Chris on Q10. I don't particularly find it fair because he uses his own personal biases to come to the conclusion that a warning is more appropriate than a fine. What happens if he pulls his own mother over because of excessive speeding and just gives her a warning? The law should be clear cut, not shades of gray.

In theory this is exactly how it should be and it would be great if it worked like that. Except the courts are flooded with cases already and if every person who was ever seen commiting a crime was arrested/fined then they would be even more flooded. It would also mean there would be lots more studded belt cases around where someone breaks a minor law on a technicality and could end up facing a court/prison sentence/big legal fees/fines/any other sentece.

If you wanna argue in principle then you would win every day of the week (becasue you're quite right that the judiciary should decide and letting police decide leads to corruption) except we don't live in an in principle world and the system simply wouldn't work without some leeway.

One more thing, Post #700

In practice, you're right and I'm sure in theory, you're right also. But we're talking about speeding fines here, not that which requires a summons nor charges being laid. The penalties for excessive speeding don't require a summons unless the fine is unpaid. Why then do police have the right to decide whether or not someone should receive a fine, if they don't apply TOO much pressure on the courts? Also, all well and good they don't want to fine someone who accidentally broke the law, but regardless of that fact, the definition of a crime is one committed by intent or by omission. edit: I realised I sound partially like an idiot. :\