I understand the rationale but the solution to the problem just seems wrong.
Basically, this is aimed at folks who try to game the system and hope the arresting officer doesn’t make it to court that day, thereby getting a dismissal and no fine.
I actually don’t get that. Just the time and the trouble and the parking and everything else involved in going to court makes it seem like it would be easier to pay the damn fine.
But at the same time, I’d be a lot more interested in fixing the system than fining people for taking advantage of the fact that it’s broken — and it’s clearly broken if cops don’t have time to face these folks in court. Bottom line, I think these judges are out of line and I hope somebody makes a test case out of it. And I don’t seem to be alone in that, to some extent.
But critics question the policy. Defense attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer said the court is applying a broad policy to matters that ought to be handled on a case-by-case basis. The court might be inviting a class-action lawsuit or review by the Indiana Supreme Court.
“No court should have a uniform policy on imposition of any sentence, fine or disposition,” Lukemeyer said. “It’s no different than if the court tells a defendant, ‘If you go to trial, you will get an extra 10 years.'”
Actually, no. It’s akin to telling the defendant that if he goes to trial and then backs out to cop a plea at the last minute, he gets an extra 10 years.
Again, I understand why they want to do this, but it does just seem wrong, and I think this particular barn door is going to come back and hit the court in the ass.