Comments on: Incentives Matter, Red-Light Camera Edition

By: Margaret Klein

Margaret Klein — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:35:25 +0000

Red-light camera programs may also be unconstitutional, according to a federal judge in Knoxville, Tennessee. “The key issue which must be resolved in these cases is whether the penalty imposed is civil or criminal,” wrote Judge Thomas Phillips recently. If the penalty is deemed criminal, then a panoply of federal constitutional rights arise, including rights to confrontation and rights against self-incrimination.

Running a red light is a crime under state law, but Knoxville’s city fathers blithely got around that with an ordinance making it a civil offense.

There’s more . . . According to Phillips, the melding of a for-profit firm with traffic enforcement has ominous overtones.

By: Bart

Bart — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:15:28 +0000

By: Bart

Bart — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:14:40 +0000

Would 've been interesting to hear Milton Friedman on this. See this discussion, which might reveal his position. Any thoughts?

By: josephlogan

josephlogan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:02:13 +0000

Should have read a few questions. Sorry for omitting the end of the tag.

By: josephlogan

josephlogan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:58:42 +0000

I raised a few questions about this last month, particualy in the context of what are and are not unintended consequences. I really don’t think I bottomed out the issue, but I’ve been writing about them here in the UK, including frequent sightings of cameras that have been blown up. It’s particularly unconscionable in my view that jurisdictions achieve the revenue target at these sites and then move the cameras. Doesn’t get much more transparent than that.