Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
Right... because seizing things is so convenient for police. Like they would just take it and throw it in a basket and call it a day.
|
It's a punishment designed to lessen the load on the justice system by not requiring the officer go to court and prove that the person should lose their cell phone/car for a period of time. Are you saying that taking someone's phone, getting their name, and dropping it off at the station is more difficult and expensive in both time and money than going to court?
I have no problem with vastly increased fines for those caught, but that would mean some of them would fight the tickets in court. Well the gov't doesn't want that, as the courts are already busy, so it's easier just to amend the law to have people summarily punished with no recourse. That isn't how the law should work.
Further, it's a false analogy to link this with evidence seized to assist in the prosecution of a crime. This isn't that, as the seizure is incidental to the charge, not central to its proof - like (I think) flameswin said, if I'm eating a burger and I'm distracted should they impound the burger for 24 hours? Most people laugh at that idea, but it logically follows as a consequence of deciding to take away the instrument by which the infraction was committed as a precedent in law.