Skip to content

Deferred Adjudication

March 18, 2013

While we’re talking about justice, let’s talk about Deferred Adjudication.  This is a fantastic tool for the government to be able to raise money while proving that there is no moral basis for most laws as enforced.  Here’s how it works.

Let’s say that Joe Taxpayer is traveling down the highway that he’s paid for, that’s maintained with the confiscations of his wealth from gasoline taxes and he’s traveling at a rate of speed which is comfortable and safe for him. Let’s say 85 miles  per hour.  He’s got airbags, seat-belts, crash cage vehicle construction with crumple zones and other amazing safety features in his car.

A police officer, abusing the resources and trust of the community he represents, pulls Joe over and issues him a citation for having broken some stupid arbitrary rule about how fast he can travel on his road, the point of which seems to be to just keep the thumb on the public and increase revenue for the municipality.

Joe reads his citation and sees that one of his options is to do “Deferred Adjudication”.  He will pay DOUBLE the citation amount and, if he is able to stay out of the path of other untrustworthy, despicable abusers of power for 60(?) days, he has the offense wiped off of his record.

If there were a moral component to this “crime”, it would be that Joe is an increased risk to the public. As such, his insurance rates will go up so that the insurance company is able to be compensated for their increased exposure to risk from this person’s driving.  Other rate payers are thus protected from risk by Joe being forced to shoulder more of the fiscal risk involved with his driving “too fast”. The State (or municipality in our example) says, “Hey, for some EXTRA money, we’ll just look the other way and there’s no societal record of your wrong”.

Now, were there really some moral component to this infraction, the municipality has now become complicit in defrauding the insurance company because they’ve accepted money to hide the level of risk that the insurance company is taking on. Ouch!  How disgusting!

The state/municipality has no problem with this because they are taking money for thwarting justice (if justice had a role here) and probably because, were they to actually think about it, they’d be willing to admit that there is no moral basis for the infraction and there is no real public safety component to the enforcement except that it gives our officer some way to exercise his power over people and thus assuage his need for power, even if it undermines the faith and trust and confidence in the “system”.

Look how far we’ve come from the moral basis for a small government that our Founding Fathers have bequeathed to us.  Disgusting isn’t it?

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: