Techno-Fix Versus the Fair Cop: Procedural (In)Justice and Automated Speed Limit Enforcement

• NCJ Number: 225444
• Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume: 48 Issue: 6 Dated: November 2008 Pages: 798-817
• Author(s): Helen Wells
• Date Published: November 2008
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): PTA 030-2002-01469
• Sponsoring Agency: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

This British study examined one policing “techno-fix,” the speed camera, from the perspective of those who encountered the technology as offenders.

Abstract

The speed camera detects, within its range of observation, whether a vehicle passing through the observation area has exceeded the speed limit for the targeted area. It also provides enough information to identify the individual who committed the violation, such that they can be traced and administered the appropriate sanction. Exceeding the speed limit is deemed punishable, regardless of whether it occurred intentionally or inadvertently, and is therefore prosecuted as a strict-liability offense. The view of many of the drivers involved in the current study is that the system of speed cameras is too impartial, neutral, and consistent. In essence, they want an acknowledgement of their individuality and the contexts that were associated with the offending. They want to be able to converse with and receive a sensitive and fair response from a police officer who has the discretion to consider all the factors associated with a particular speeding violation. The assumption of this preference is that if detections are made by police officers instead of machines, some assessment of dangerousness by the police officer occurs. It is further assumed that police officers will only charge speeders who pose a serious danger to themselves and other drivers. Initial research involved the analysis of Internet-based discussion forums on speed limit enforcement. Focus groups were subsequently convened that involved 29 drivers with different driving histories: convicted drivers (2 groups), new drivers, experienced drivers, and professional drivers (2 groups). Questions explored the drivers’ views; and where dissatisfaction with speed cameras was expressed, reasons were explored. Nonparticipant overt observation of 20 sessions of a Speed Awareness Course was also conducted. 1 table and 47 references