Amusing Scrotum
28th June 2006, 06:00
From an article in The New York Times Civil Engineering section.
Originally posted by Marcia Biederman
Santa Rosa officials said they had concluded that the earnings from the fines did not justify the costs. But for larger cities, the programs have been profitable. Washington has collected more than $26 million in fines since 1999, of which it kept $16 million after costs. New York City netted more than $9 million after expenses from its 50 working cameras. But legal challenges have increased, and some critics refer to a court decision last year in San Diego as a possible turning point in the use of cameras.
In the decision, a California state judge agreed with arguments that the City of San Diego had handed too much law-enforcement authority to the operator of the cameras, the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Arthur F. Tait III, part of a legal team that represented 292 drivers, argued that the arrangement, in which the contractor received $70 from each $271 fine, was creating an incentive for the company to "prosecute for profit."
http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/article.../23/1045780.xml (http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/10/23/1045780.xml)
In my opinion, that's almost a perfect example of the States role in facilitating the furthering of the economic interests of the ruling capitalist class. And to think, they call it Private Enterprise. <_<
Originally posted by Marcia Biederman
Santa Rosa officials said they had concluded that the earnings from the fines did not justify the costs. But for larger cities, the programs have been profitable. Washington has collected more than $26 million in fines since 1999, of which it kept $16 million after costs. New York City netted more than $9 million after expenses from its 50 working cameras. But legal challenges have increased, and some critics refer to a court decision last year in San Diego as a possible turning point in the use of cameras.
In the decision, a California state judge agreed with arguments that the City of San Diego had handed too much law-enforcement authority to the operator of the cameras, the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Arthur F. Tait III, part of a legal team that represented 292 drivers, argued that the arrangement, in which the contractor received $70 from each $271 fine, was creating an incentive for the company to "prosecute for profit."
http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/article.../23/1045780.xml (http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/10/23/1045780.xml)
In my opinion, that's almost a perfect example of the States role in facilitating the furthering of the economic interests of the ruling capitalist class. And to think, they call it Private Enterprise. <_<