Under the American legal system, a suspect is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, correct?
Why then, does that not seem to be the case in traffic violations? If I’m standing before a judge, pleading not-guilty, why is the only thing required for a conviction the word of a police officer that I was indeed doing 62 in a 35?
If it were my word against my net-door neighbor’s word in some argument about stolen property, the court would throw the case out because there was no decisive proof in the matter. However, if the prosecution happens to be the government, represented by a law enforcement official, you are instantly proven guilty with no evidence other than their word.
If there are any lawyers out there that actually know the legality and logic behind these types of cases, I would more than love to hear your explanation.
Until then, viva la resistance, I suppose!
Eek! I never even thought of this. You rise a legitimate point….
I would also be interested to hear an official legal explanation for this.