Q: In last week’s article you talked about some traffic violations being infractions and some being crimes. Both of them are still illegal, so what’s the difference? Why are there separate categories?
A: If you commit an infraction, you’re a scofflaw; if you commit a crime, you’re a criminal. That’s not really true. I just like the sound of “scofflaw” and wanted to use it. You’re right that both traffic infractions and traffic crimes are violations of the law, but there are some real differences, both in the consequences and in the court process. That’s because infractions, as civil violations, follow a different legal process than criminal violations.
Most traffic violations are infractions. However as violations increase in their severity, they make the list of criminal violations. That list, found in the Revised Code of Washington, includes the biggies, like impaired driving, reckless driving and vehicular assault. It also includes some things you might be surprised are a crime, such as using a fake disabled parking placard or providing false information on your driver license application. (I wonder if that includes lying about your height or weight. We all want to be a little taller or a little thinner, right?)
On the consequences end of things, here’s the big difference: you can’t go to jail for a traffic infraction. Because it is a civil violation, as opposed to criminal, the penalty is limited to a fine. (Many criminal traffic violations don’t result in jail, but it is an option.) I should clarify that I’m referring to the limit of the justice system; you may face additional consequences from the Department of Licensing if you accumulate too many traffic infractions. Collect six moving violations in a one year period and DOL will suspend your license. Driving with a suspended license is a crime, so while individual traffic infractions in themselves won’t send you to jail, driving after you’ve collected enough of them could get you there.
As I’ve mentioned before, it seems like it would take some intentional effort to rack up six infractions in a year. That might lead you to believe that these are some of our worst drivers, and you’d be right. In Washington, 18 percent of fatal crashes involve an unlicensed driver. If close to 18 percent of all drivers were unlicensed, this statistic wouldn’t be of any great importance. But according to a AAA study, less than three percent of drivers are unlicensed, and over half of those drivers are unlicensed because of a suspension. That works out to a more than six-fold increase risk of a fatal crash for suspended drivers.
In the courtroom, traffic infractions are subject to a different standard of proof compared to criminal violations. What does that mean? You’ve most likely heard the term “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s in courtroom dramas on TV and chatroom advice on the internet. It is also the standard for a criminal conviction. It is the highest standard of proof in our court system, and basically requires that the judge or jury see no other reasonable alternative to guilt for the crime charged.
In comparison, traffic infractions are held to a standard of proof called “preponderance of the evidence.” This is a much lower standard, often described as “more likely than not.” In a court proceeding for a traffic infraction, the judge would find a violator guilty if the prosecutor’s version of the events sounds more likely than the defense’s story. Maybe that sounds unfair, but remember the upside; you can’t go to jail if you’re found guilty.
You might have noticed that when discussing the criminal process I referenced both judge and jury, but when talking about infractions I only mentioned the judge. That’s because when contesting a traffic infraction there is no jury option. In any other civil case the parties involved may demand a jury trial, but traffic infractions are specifically exempted from that choice.
You might think that’s a violation of the seventh amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees a trial by jury in civil disputes for amounts over 20 dollars. Now we’re clearly in territory beyond my scope of knowledge, but if anyone reading this ever tries to demand a jury trial for a traffic infraction, please invite me to sit in on the request. I’d love to see how that works out for you.
We’ve been looking at the differences between infractions and criminal violations, but we should also look at what they have in common. Many traffic violations, whether civil or criminal, increase the risk of a crash. Courtroom consequences are a good reason to obey the law, but our biggest motivation should be arriving at our destination safely.
Nearly 30 years ago I got pulled over because I saw a 45 mph limit ahead and prematurely increased my speed while I was still in a 35 mph zone. A policeman had staked out the area and gave me a ticket for speeding and “reckless” driving although no other cars were around. I did not know the particulars of the law but felt that I was being unduly charged. So, I opted for a jury and they gave me an appointment to come down to the police station. It being a small town down south, a wooden box was taken out and we took turns pulling rolled up scrolls of paper from little plastic tubes to select the jurors. I thought I had telported to Mayberry! Finally, the police chief said “You seem like a fine upstanding young man…just why do you want a jury? Ah you worried about yore poi-yints?” When I said yes, he knocked the charge down to careless driving and dropped the points. Case closed!
Seems to me that many traffic laws are stacked against us( the driving public) even the reasonable and prudent drivers who are the majority. This is the main reason in my view that these laws being cited against us hurts so much and frustrates us at times the rest of our lives. The laws are made and enforced by the minority against the rest among who are a few that need correction at some point, while the rest of the majority face many unjust citations among the fray of it all. One of the ways this can change for the better is to make sure lawmakers and law enforcement are held to the same standards not only in they’re driving, but the money and the record of such offenses are kept by some of the minority association advocating for the majority reasonable and prudent drivers. Only then by showing them how it feels to be held accountable by some group that they are not a comfortable part of will they see the consequences of their actions and we’ll all have a better chance of getting reasonable traffic laws and their enforcement.