I just rejected the lifting of some sort of levy lid down here in Thurston.
If your in Tumwater/Blacklake area you just voted against your fire department hiring a few extra personnel to cover the residential expansion in that area.
Okay, I get it. You hate red light cameras. You dismiss all scientific studies (or at least, all studies that prove the cameras' effectiveness at reducing serious injuries and fatalities), because the academic and insurance industry experts who have dedicated their careers to studying traffic safety are clearly corrupt and/or stupid, or something. And you're absolutely convinced that the local elected officials who approve the installation of red light cameras are doing so solely for the purpose of sucking your hard-earned dollars out of your wallet because, what? They skim the extra dollars for themselves to spend on scotch and hookers? In fact, these electeds are soooo craven, according to you, that they're even fiddling with the timing of yellow lights in order to create more infractions (and thus accidents!) so as to squeeze even more revenue out of you poor downtrodden drivers. The bastards!
And don't get you started on the evil red light camera companies who you say keep most of the money for themselves, thus, in your minds, creating a financial incentive to increase the number of citations... even though they don't. They just don't. At least not according to the contracts Seattle and Bellevue signed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Both these contracts specify a monthly service fee of up to $3,750 per intersection, plus various optional processing fees, to install, maintain, and operate the cameras. Indeed, over the first two years of Seattle's red light program, citations brought in $2,075,038 in revenues at a cost of $1,009,800, only $518,343 of which went to ATS, less than 25 percent. Oh, and in case you're wondering, all infractions are reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued.
So in the interest of encouraging an informed dialectic, let me ask you a question: If not red light cameras, what?
Would you prefer the traffic laws be enforced at these intersections by actual police officers, so that you could add a moving violation onto your record (along with the higher insurance premiums that might bring) on top of the $124 fine? (FYI, a red light camera citation is just an expensive parking ticket.) According to a 2007 report, it would take six officers ($121,000 a year each) to patrol an intersection 24/7; that would come to a monthly cost of $60,500 per intersection, as opposed to the $3,750 ATS charges. Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression was that the whiney,red light camera hating types were also the whiney government hating types who generally support outsourcing public sector jobs to private sector companies who can do the work more efficiently.
Or... is your real goal simply to keep our traffic laws from being enforced? Yeah, I kinda think that might be it. You simply want to continue to recklessly accelerate through stale yellow lights, don't you, without the risk of getting a ticket should you mistime it by a second or three? Yeah, sure, dangerous behavior like this takes out the odd pedestrian or two, or causes the occasional t-boning. But it's not like it was your mother who was killed, so what's it to you?
So finally, let me ask you one more question. If, hypothetically, you could be convinced—like the experts are—that red light cameras reduce the number and severity of red light running accidents, how many lives would it take to get you to drop your opposition? Just one of the estimated 1,000 deaths a year nationally attributed to red light running? Ten? One Hundred? Or, is there no number of innocent lives to be saved that is worth sacrificing your freedom to determine for yourself when our traffic laws should or should not be obeyed?
Okay, I get it. You hate red light cameras. You dismiss all scientific studies (or at least, all studies that prove the cameras' effectiveness at reducing serious injuries and fatalities), because the academic and insurance industry experts who have dedicated their careers to studying traffic safety are clearly corrupt and/or stupid, or something. And you're absolutely convinced that the local elected officials who approve the installation of red light cameras are doing so solely for the purpose of sucking your hard-earned dollars out of your wallet because, what? They skim the extra dollars for themselves to spend on scotch and hookers? In fact, these electeds are soooo craven, according to you, that they're even fiddling with the timing of yellow lights in order to create more infractions (and thus accidents!) so as to squeeze even more revenue out of you poor downtrodden drivers. The bastards!
And don't get you started on the evil red light camera companies who you say keep most of the money for themselves, thus, in your minds, creating a financial incentive to increase the number of citations... even though they don't. They just don't. At least not according to the contracts Seattle and Bellevue signed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Both these contracts specify a monthly service fee of up to $3,750 per intersection, plus various optional processing fees, to install, maintain, and operate the cameras. Indeed, over the first two years of Seattle's red light program, citations brought in $2,075,038 in revenues at a cost of $1,009,800, only $518,343 of which went to ATS, less than 25 percent. Oh, and in case you're wondering, all infractions are reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued.
So in the interest of encouraging an informed dialectic, let me ask you a question: If not red light cameras, what?
Would you prefer the traffic laws be enforced at these intersections by actual police officers, so that you could add a moving violation onto your record (along with the higher insurance premiums that might bring) on top of the $124 fine? (FYI, a red light camera citation is just an expensive parking ticket.) According to a 2007 report, it would take six officers ($121,000 a year each) to patrol an intersection 24/7; that would come to a monthly cost of $60,500 per intersection, as opposed to the $3,750 ATS charges. Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression was that the whiney,red light camera hating types were also the whiney government hating types who generally support outsourcing public sector jobs to private sector companies who can do the work more efficiently.
Or... is your real goal simply to keep our traffic laws from being enforced? Yeah, I kinda think that might be it. You simply want to continue to recklessly accelerate through stale yellow lights, don't you, without the risk of getting a ticket should you mistime it by a second or three? Yeah, sure, dangerous behavior like this takes out the odd pedestrian or two, or causes the occasional t-boning. But it's not like it was your mother who was killed, so what's it to you?
So finally, let me ask you one more question. If, hypothetically, you could be convinced—like the experts are—that red light cameras reduce the number and severity of red light running accidents, how many lives would it take to get you to drop your opposition? Just one of the estimated 1,000 deaths a year nationally attributed to red light running? Ten? One Hundred? Or, is there no number of innocent lives to be saved that is worth sacrificing your freedom to determine for yourself when our traffic laws should or should not be obeyed?
Okay, I get it. You hate red light cameras. You dismiss all scientific studies (or at least, all studies that prove the cameras' effectiveness at reducing serious injuries and fatalities), because the academic and insurance industry experts who have dedicated their careers to studying traffic safety are clearly corrupt and/or stupid, or something. And you're absolutely convinced that the local elected officials who approve the installation of red light cameras are doing so solely for the purpose of sucking your hard-earned dollars out of your wallet because, what? They skim the extra dollars for themselves to spend on scotch and hookers? In fact, these electeds are soooo craven, according to you, that they're even fiddling with the timing of yellow lights in order to create more infractions (and thus accidents!) so as to squeeze even more revenue out of you poor downtrodden drivers. The bastards!
And don't get you started on the evil red light camera companies who you say keep most of the money for themselves, thus, in your minds, creating a financial incentive to increase the number of citations... even though they don't. They just don't. At least not according to the contracts Seattle and Bellevue signed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Both these contracts specify a monthly service fee of up to $3,750 per intersection, plus various optional processing fees, to install, maintain, and operate the cameras. Indeed, over the first two years of Seattle's red light program, citations brought in $2,075,038 in revenues at a cost of $1,009,800, only $518,343 of which went to ATS, less than 25 percent. Oh, and in case you're wondering, all infractions are reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued.
So in the interest of encouraging an informed dialectic, let me ask you a question: If not red light cameras, what?
Would you prefer the traffic laws be enforced at these intersections by actual police officers, so that you could add a moving violation onto your record (along with the higher insurance premiums that might bring) on top of the $124 fine? (FYI, a red light camera citation is just an expensive parking ticket.) According to a 2007 report, it would take six officers ($121,000 a year each) to patrol an intersection 24/7; that would come to a monthly cost of $60,500 per intersection, as opposed to the $3,750 ATS charges. Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression was that the whiney,red light camera hating types were also the whiney government hating types who generally support outsourcing public sector jobs to private sector companies who can do the work more efficiently.
Or... is your real goal simply to keep our traffic laws from being enforced? Yeah, I kinda think that might be it. You simply want to continue to recklessly accelerate through stale yellow lights, don't you, without the risk of getting a ticket should you mistime it by a second or three? Yeah, sure, dangerous behavior like this takes out the odd pedestrian or two, or causes the occasional t-boning. But it's not like it was your mother who was killed, so what's it to you?
So finally, let me ask you one more question. If, hypothetically, you could be convinced—like the experts are—that red light cameras reduce the number and severity of red light running accidents, how many lives would it take to get you to drop your opposition? Just one of the estimated 1,000 deaths a year nationally attributed to red light running? Ten? One Hundred? Or, is there no number of innocent lives to be saved that is worth sacrificing your freedom to determine for yourself when our traffic laws should or should not be obeyed?
I look forward to continuing our correspondence.
Love,
Goldy
His bolding
Wow. That comes off as both whiny and offensive.
Nice rebuttal to his points, I especially liked your first part, backed by evidence in your second.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
Okay, I get it. You hate red light cameras. You dismiss all scientific studies (or at least, all studies that prove the cameras' effectiveness at reducing serious injuries and fatalities), because the academic and insurance industry experts who have dedicated their careers to studying traffic safety are clearly corrupt and/or stupid, or something. And you're absolutely convinced that the local elected officials who approve the installation of red light cameras are doing so solely for the purpose of sucking your hard-earned dollars out of your wallet because, what? They skim the extra dollars for themselves to spend on scotch and hookers? In fact, these electeds are soooo craven, according to you, that they're even fiddling with the timing of yellow lights in order to create more infractions (and thus accidents!) so as to squeeze even more revenue out of you poor downtrodden drivers. The bastards!
And don't get you started on the evil red light camera companies who you say keep most of the money for themselves, thus, in your minds, creating a financial incentive to increase the number of citations... even though they don't. They just don't. At least not according to the contracts Seattle and Bellevue signed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Both these contracts specify a monthly service fee of up to $3,750 per intersection, plus various optional processing fees, to install, maintain, and operate the cameras. Indeed, over the first two years of Seattle's red light program, citations brought in $2,075,038 in revenues at a cost of $1,009,800, only $518,343 of which went to ATS, less than 25 percent. Oh, and in case you're wondering, all infractions are reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued.
So in the interest of encouraging an informed dialectic, let me ask you a question: If not red light cameras, what?
Would you prefer the traffic laws be enforced at these intersections by actual police officers, so that you could add a moving violation onto your record (along with the higher insurance premiums that might bring) on top of the $124 fine? (FYI, a red light camera citation is just an expensive parking ticket.) According to a 2007 report, it would take six officers ($121,000 a year each) to patrol an intersection 24/7; that would come to a monthly cost of $60,500 per intersection, as opposed to the $3,750 ATS charges. Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression was that the whiney,red light camera hating types were also the whiney government hating types who generally support outsourcing public sector jobs to private sector companies who can do the work more efficiently.
Or... is your real goal simply to keep our traffic laws from being enforced? Yeah, I kinda think that might be it. You simply want to continue to recklessly accelerate through stale yellow lights, don't you, without the risk of getting a ticket should you mistime it by a second or three? Yeah, sure, dangerous behavior like this takes out the odd pedestrian or two, or causes the occasional t-boning. But it's not like it was your mother who was killed, so what's it to you?
So finally, let me ask you one more question. If, hypothetically, you could be convinced—like the experts are—that red light cameras reduce the number and severity of red light running accidents, how many lives would it take to get you to drop your opposition? Just one of the estimated 1,000 deaths a year nationally attributed to red light running? Ten? One Hundred? Or, is there no number of innocent lives to be saved that is worth sacrificing your freedom to determine for yourself when our traffic laws should or should not be obeyed?
I look forward to continuing our correspondence.
Love,
Goldy
His bolding
Wow. That comes off as both whiny and offensive.
Nice rebuttal to his points, I especially liked your first part, backed by evidence in your second.
Thank you for the segway.
Basically, Goldy has consistently dodged the questions that the anti red light camera crowd has posited to him.
Second, several municipalities have been caught using red light cameras for revenue gathering. (Furthermore, the means by which the revenue gathering is done actually increases the likelihood of accidents.) So to try to argue that this isn't done is simple goosery.
Third, he tries to argue that his opponents are arguing in bad faith, and just don't want the laws enforced. Yet his opponents do, in fact, have a solution that is both cheaper and doesn't have all the myriad attendant problems of red light cameras - altering the timing of lights to improve safety and re-engineering of dangerous intersections. The study linked was one put out by the City of Los Angeles, and it shows that engineering solutions wind up being more effective then red light cameras. Which is why LA has completely scrapped their red light camera program, going so far as to have the cameras physically removed.
Fourth, when he tries to argue the private management of red light cameras is cost effective, his arguments fail to pass simple mathematical scrutiny. It's simple, really - the operation of a camera is a fixed cost, and not percentage of revenues taken in. This means that if your camera program is effective, and improves safety by reducing violations, the revenue generated by said camera will decrease. Eventually, it's going to decrease below the breakeven point, at which point the city is contractually obligated to pony up for the fixed operational cost. Don't think it can happen? Ask Escondido, CA, which fell into this exact trap. There's also the mess in Houston, where ATS threatened the city with breach of contract if the city refused to turn the cameras back on after an initiative banning them was tossed out on procedural grounds.
In short, his "argument" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion that avoids looking at opposing arguments because they actually reveal that red light cameras aren't the solution their backers make them out to be, and there are other, better alternatives.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
I still won't vote for his initiative. Anything that man puts his name behind and scores a victory off of just encourages him further. We don't need that.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
I still won't vote for his initiative. Anything that man puts his name behind and scores a victory off of just encourages him further. We don't need that.
This. I vote down everything he backs on principle.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
I still won't vote for his initiative. Anything that man puts his name behind and scores a victory off of just encourages him further. We don't need that.
This. I vote down everything he backs on principle.
So, you're going to act like a Teaper. How charming.
Eh, I would't say that - it's a track record thing. If you're wrong 100% of the time historically, I'm going to take a second look at anything you come out and endorse even if I supported it previously. There may some stupid hidden in there somewhere.
Well, I definitely need to look up how Washington handles the red-light cameras, but apparently in L.A., they just got axed due to various issues, mainly that they were not particularly effective, and a rather large cost of money to keep up and running.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
I still won't vote for his initiative. Anything that man puts his name behind and scores a victory off of just encourages him further. We don't need that.
This. I vote down everything he backs on principle.
So, you're going to act like a Teaper. How charming.
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Seriously, do some research on who Tim Eyman is before you start calling people teapers for opposing his horrible schemes. The man has fucked this state enough thank you very much.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Seriously, do some research on who Tim Eyman is before you start calling people teapers for opposing his horrible schemes. The man has fucked this state enough thank you very much.
And the point flies over your head. Yes, Eyman is a horse's ass (too bad it couldn't be declared officially). That doesn't change the fact that the red light camera ban is actually a good idea. So, are you going to reflexively reject a good idea?
Eh, I would't say that - it's a track record thing. If you're wrong 100% of the time historically, I'm going to take a second look at anything you come out and endorse even if I supported it previously. There may some stupid hidden in there somewhere.
And that is sensible. Rejecting a good idea sight unseen reflexively is not.
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Seriously, do some research on who Tim Eyman is before you start calling people teapers for opposing his horrible schemes. The man has fucked this state enough thank you very much.
And the point flies over your head. Yes, Eyman is a horse's ass (too bad it couldn't be declared officially). That doesn't change the fact that the red light camera ban is actually a good idea. So, are you going to reflexively reject a good idea?
Can we weight the benefit of cockblocking Eyman with the benefit of the ban?
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Seriously, do some research on who Tim Eyman is before you start calling people teapers for opposing his horrible schemes. The man has fucked this state enough thank you very much.
And the point flies over your head. Yes, Eyman is a horse's ass (too bad it couldn't be declared officially). That doesn't change the fact that the red light camera ban is actually a good idea. So, are you going to reflexively reject a good idea?
From Eyman? Absolutely, whatever good he intends to do is overridden by encouraging him to keep submitting his other awful ideas.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Pretty much. He could back an initiative that would save starving orphans and I'd still vote against it, because it's a small price to pay in exchange for discouraging him from ever submitting another horrible initiative ever again.
Pretty much. He could back an initiative that would save starving orphans and I'd still vote against it, because it's a small price to pay in exchange for discouraging him from ever submitting another horrible initiative ever again.
Greater good and all that.
Yes if its a good idea, someone else will submit it. I also take issue with the red light thing, because its not like his bill to remove them will put any of the other good ideas into play, it will just take the cameras down. So hooray for half measures!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
God, Arch doesn't even live here.
Apparently, you can smell Tacoma even from Eugene. :P
I had to go up to Seattle last weekend, and I'm still getting the drive through Tacoma out of my upholstery
You came to Seattle and didn't even call me?
You a dick.
Sorry Than. But for 1, I don't have your number (easily rectified, sorry), and 2, I was visiting my Aunt whose cancer went terminal. Priorities, I know.
I just rejected the lifting of some sort of levy lid down here in Thurston.
If your in Tumwater/Blacklake area you just voted against your fire department hiring a few extra personnel to cover the residential expansion in that area.
I'm technically not within city limits. I guess I'm just a Thurston County resident.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Pretty much. He could back an initiative that would save starving orphans and I'd still vote against it, because it's a small price to pay in exchange for discouraging him from ever submitting another horrible initiative ever again.
Greater good and all that.
Yes if its a good idea, someone else will submit it. I also take issue with the red light thing, because its not like his bill to remove them will put any of the other good ideas into play, it will just take the cameras down. So hooray for half measures!
Breaking Bad has taught me that half measures are a bad thing.
Posts
Seriously Welcome to Pierce county get ready to fail!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Apparently, you can smell Tacoma even from Eugene. :P
pleasepaypreacher.net
I had to go up to Seattle last weekend, and I'm still getting the drive through Tacoma out of my upholstery
Having spent my fair share of time in Tacoma, I will say that there are good eats there if you know where to look. Just... not after dark.
Up here in Snoqualmie we had an unopposed Judge and a School levy on our most recent ballot.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Fair enough.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
His bolding
Wow. That comes off as both whiny and offensive.
You a dick.
Nice rebuttal to his points, I especially liked your first part, backed by evidence in your second.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I was wondering what this petition was, now I can throw it out in good conscience.
There's also the fact that if you're looking for improving safety, it turns out that changing the timing on the lights to have a longer yellow nets you improvements, without all the attendant problems of red light cameras.
As much as I hate Eyman, he's the metaphorical broken clock on this one.
Thank you for the segway.
Basically, Goldy has consistently dodged the questions that the anti red light camera crowd has posited to him.
First, the reason that the studies he has pushed are criticized and rejected is because they have serious flaws that have not been addressed.
Second, several municipalities have been caught using red light cameras for revenue gathering. (Furthermore, the means by which the revenue gathering is done actually increases the likelihood of accidents.) So to try to argue that this isn't done is simple goosery.
Third, he tries to argue that his opponents are arguing in bad faith, and just don't want the laws enforced. Yet his opponents do, in fact, have a solution that is both cheaper and doesn't have all the myriad attendant problems of red light cameras - altering the timing of lights to improve safety and re-engineering of dangerous intersections. The study linked was one put out by the City of Los Angeles, and it shows that engineering solutions wind up being more effective then red light cameras. Which is why LA has completely scrapped their red light camera program, going so far as to have the cameras physically removed.
Fourth, when he tries to argue the private management of red light cameras is cost effective, his arguments fail to pass simple mathematical scrutiny. It's simple, really - the operation of a camera is a fixed cost, and not percentage of revenues taken in. This means that if your camera program is effective, and improves safety by reducing violations, the revenue generated by said camera will decrease. Eventually, it's going to decrease below the breakeven point, at which point the city is contractually obligated to pony up for the fixed operational cost. Don't think it can happen? Ask Escondido, CA, which fell into this exact trap. There's also the mess in Houston, where ATS threatened the city with breach of contract if the city refused to turn the cameras back on after an initiative banning them was tossed out on procedural grounds.
In short, his "argument" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion that avoids looking at opposing arguments because they actually reveal that red light cameras aren't the solution their backers make them out to be, and there are other, better alternatives.
This. I vote down everything he backs on principle.
So, you're going to act like a Teaper. How charming.
Tim Eyman is not an elected official. Opposing him on principal does not inhibit the effective operation of government. It does however make it harder for him to pass things in the future that do.
Seriously, do some research on who Tim Eyman is before you start calling people teapers for opposing his horrible schemes. The man has fucked this state enough thank you very much.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And the point flies over your head. Yes, Eyman is a horse's ass (too bad it couldn't be declared officially). That doesn't change the fact that the red light camera ban is actually a good idea. So, are you going to reflexively reject a good idea?
And that is sensible. Rejecting a good idea sight unseen reflexively is not.
Can we weight the benefit of cockblocking Eyman with the benefit of the ban?
From Eyman? Absolutely, whatever good he intends to do is overridden by encouraging him to keep submitting his other awful ideas.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Greater good and all that.
Yes if its a good idea, someone else will submit it. I also take issue with the red light thing, because its not like his bill to remove them will put any of the other good ideas into play, it will just take the cameras down. So hooray for half measures!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sorry Than. But for 1, I don't have your number (easily rectified, sorry), and 2, I was visiting my Aunt whose cancer went terminal. Priorities, I know.
Hugs?
I'm technically not within city limits. I guess I'm just a Thurston County resident.
http://www.king5.com/news/WSDOT-engineer-accused-of-stabbing-robbing-prostitutes-126806743.html
Only conviction at the time was for a lesser charge and they were unaware of his other unconvincted charges?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Anyway, I wrote my legislators about it.
That seems like a good way to maintain a healthy society.
It would obviously pertain to people who are a danger to society, e.g., people who stab hookers.