Acknowledge the no-traffic and quality of vehicle in consideration.
Severe chastizing but only written warning.
A ticket, but written for under 20 over due to circumstance.
Write a ticket for over 20 mph but under 100 mph
Write a ticket forthe full 170 mph
A huge $$ fine
Permanently seize car and forfeture it.
Suspend driver's license for 1 year
Suspend driver's license for years.
Too big for the crime that was mentioned. There was a small possibility that a accident could have happened not a probability or a reasonable possibility.
Given that this only applies to roads that are strait and which has little traffic at night, we likely do not know how many are doing this. And you answer my point that the prisons are full by doubling down if they make a big difference.Not enough people drive 100 over the limit to make a significant difference in our prison population. However, if there were enough to make a difference then all the more reason to lock up as many as possible for as long as possible.
NO, I could only assume from your post that the sentence was one year and not just the time served to probation.One year actually served naturally assumed a much longer original sentence.
There must be limits to how far the law goes or the Court system is just another band of thieves and extortionists. If you had your way there would not be a rule of law but a reign of laws.We can change that any time we want as long as not too many libertarians get elected or appointed judge.
NO, the LAW dictates by statute that people who are repeat offenders are liable for increased punishment. Those who violate court orders or break other laws like driving without a license would be a separate charge unless the court order by statute dictates an increased time to serve with the probation period or by statue if the law has conditions that if a DWOL occurs it is treated differently.I don't see how this addresses the point. What the law assumes is that violators will be liable for increased punishment.
His used to be the way when referring to an indefinite gender which was changed recently say about 20 years ago. It just slipped out.Whose car do you mean by "his car"?
Irrelevant due to the seriousness of the crime.
WRONG, no one was injured in this case and no damage to property occurred the driver was complaint with the officers instructions. If there were injuries or damage then an higher penalty may be applicable but it should not have extreme penalties especially for a first time offender. After all it was not malicious but stupidity if you want to call it that.
If they was "lucky" then they should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm. And yes the penalty should not be draconian. Fine them, jail him for a few months if necessary, have the rest on probation, and make him take classes on gun safety. That should be enough for most people to get their attention.By that reasoning someone who shoots but misses should not be subject to draconian penalty just because he was lucky. We should not have to wait until someone gets hurt to impose such punishment.
Which is a violation of equal protection under the law. It may not be "fair" that people with more wealth can more easily pay fines than others but that IS the way under common law which the Constitution requires. And what happens when the person has no income?No it would not. It would only be selecting a different factor, namely percentage of personal wealth, upon which to base equality.
Are you even employed? YES it is excessive given that NO harm came to a person nor property was damaged. If you want a stiff fine OK a $1000.00 fine would be one. A years income is out of proportion to the offense committed. I do not think you know how much a burden that would be.I am not sure the cutoff point has ever been established for this. I do not think a year's pay would be excessive.
I do not take for granted that the government is run by people who have the attitude that they are serving in the best interests of the greater populace nor do I believe that when given such tools as you want to give would they serve the best interests either. Government is run by people and not angels and allowing them this discretion will be abused.Bull****.
NO the State must have the necessary power over those who are convicted of a serious crime not more. America is NOT an "orderly society" it is Nation of people who are considered individuals and have inherent rights. You are under the misapprehension that our country is some sort of collective. A Democracy is the worst government of all, period. It either becomes a ridged cult State or rips itself apart do to insolvable disputes.The state must have enormous power over those who are convicted of serious crime. Orderly society could not be attained otherwise.
I am a Libertarian, I believe that Liberty is of the highest value of all within the structure that any acts must not violate the rights of others. The OP had a scenario where what can be termed reckless driving occurred but there were no violations of persons or properties. Given that there could be a reasonable fine for doing so but they should not have to forfeit their property nor serve a sentence on a first time violation and we only have the violation without aggravating circumstances so there is no cause for a greater punishment.I am a responsible conservative, but the measures I advocate should also be agreeable to responsible liberals. Libertarians I am not sure about.
People who call themselves "responsible" tend to be the ones who are responsible much ill in this world. Many liberals would probably use that term when advocating for their Statist measures. One should be responsible for ones self and one's dependents. I am nor you are not responsible for the actions of another but since we must have laws to deter reckless behavior then we must have reasonable laws that deter these acts and reasonable penalties for violations and it must not be an undue burden for violations without negative outcomes.
The point is no actual harm was done in the OP by the driver. If there were harm done then we can establish a proportional penalty with respect to the harm done.
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?