actually, the real argument against them is that they are an unconstitutional catch-22. they can't directly accuse YOU of doing it, because they have no proof you were the one driving.
so you get this charge against you because of your car, requiring you to either fess-up (against the 5th amendment), or plead against the driver who may have been your spouse (and therefore also against the 5th amendment).
proof that my car was involved is not proof that i did it. there is both reasonable doubt AND no constitutional reason why i must testify that it wasn't me or that it was anyone else.
they make it all about the money because they know any other form of punishment would never be held up under due process and face your accuser requirements, but if it was just the money it is less likely anybody would actually mount the constitutional challenge this b.s. requires to go away for good.
no subject
so you get this charge against you because of your car, requiring you to either fess-up (against the 5th amendment), or plead against the driver who may have been your spouse (and therefore also against the 5th amendment).
proof that my car was involved is not proof that i did it. there is both reasonable doubt AND no constitutional reason why i must testify that it wasn't me or that it was anyone else.
they make it all about the money because they know any other form of punishment would never be held up under due process and face your accuser requirements, but if it was just the money it is less likely anybody would actually mount the constitutional challenge this b.s. requires to go away for good.