Unethical ways to save money

[ender]

Professors get screwed in that process too, if they write their own book and want to use it for example it still sucks for them.

[DaMa]

I imagine you could use 50 year old textbooks for math classes.  I had a three courses in calculus, and by the time I took the third, they were on a new issue of the book.  The only difference was the homework problems were in a different order.  That textbook was over $50 when I bought it in 1986.  What a rip off.

[RyanAtTanagra]

The problem is, with the case of textbooks, the people paying aren't the ones making the choice.

Which choice? To go to college, pick the major, or take the course?

Who made the choice?

The choice of which books to buy.  You could say 'well if you don't want to buy expensive textbooks don't go to college', but that's a bit extreme.

[talltexan]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

[RyanAtTanagra]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary.  If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)

[RetiredAt63]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary.  If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)

Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses.  Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use.  I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester.  I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired.  And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition.  Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same.  And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff.  Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc. 

Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way.  I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out.  Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content?  Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use. 

I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching.  This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources.  The cost of journals has skyrocketed.  Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.

Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.

[DadJokes]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary.  If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)

Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses.  Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use.  I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester.  I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired.  And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition.  Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same.  And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff.  Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc. 

Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way.  I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out.  Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content?  Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use. 

I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching.  This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources.  The cost of journals has skyrocketed.  Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.

Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.

It's a scam in the US. They release a new edition every year or two, and the only differences are slight wording clarifications or problems moved around in a different order. There are very few fields where the information is changing rapidly enough that a new textbook is needed that frequently.

[RetiredAt63]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary.  If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)

Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses.  Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use.  I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester.  I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired.  And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition.  Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same.  And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff.  Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc. 

Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way.  I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out.  Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content?  Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use. 

I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching.  This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources.  The cost of journals has skyrocketed.  Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.

Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.

It's a scam in the US. They release a new edition every year or two, and the only differences are slight wording clarifications or problems moved around in a different order. There are very few fields where the information is changing rapidly enough that a new textbook is needed that frequently.

We use mostly the same publishers.  Every 3-4 years, generally, and as I said if you examine the contents closely you will see the updates are reflecting what is new in the field.  Textbooks do get dated, faster in some fields than others.  I was fine with my students using the previous edition as long as they were careful to get the new information as well.  Much past that and it got difficult for them, there were enough changes.

I remember in high school (60's) my Dad showed me his university biology textbook (they made Engineering students take a biology course!).  Big discussion on what material in the nucleus carried the hereditary information, the authors were more in favour of the proteins than the nucleic acids.  ;-)  Proteins are much more complex, eh?

ETA - car manufacturers bring out a new model every year.  Publishers bring out new editions every few years.  It's business.  Faculty don't drive the textbook market in terms of when new editions come out, publishing companies do.  As a teacher, there were times I had to change my textbook because the old edition was not available any longer.  Just like you can't buy a 2017 car model new these days; if you want one you will get it second-hand.

[nancyfrank232]

A new textbook is needed as frequently as the market is continually willing to pay for it

The market is dictating that the price of college should be higher

[lexde]

Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.

[dragoncar]

Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.

Have you actually done this?  I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice.  Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names

[lexde]

Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.

Have you actually done this?  I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice.  Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names

They don’t check at all. Same card/address/name.

You can see it as the cost of poor security/loopholes. Or just follow the rules and only do it the once! :-P

[dragoncar]

Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.

Have you actually done this?  I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice.  Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names

They don’t check at all. Same card/address/name.

You can see it as the cost of poor security/loopholes. Or just follow the rules and only do it the once! :-P

Ah yes it's a maximum of $20 discount, which is useless because I'm a baller who easily spends $5k on a bag of dog food.

Seriously, though, this is the kind of thing I would have expected past-me to try.  For some reason, though, I didn't... I usually hop around between promotions (Amazon and Google Express have had really good promotions in the past) but I did buy quite a few full-priced bags from Chewy.  Not sure what I was thinking so thanks for pointing it out. 

I might just try this using the "gmail plus sign trick" which can create unlimited virtual aliases for your gmail account.  I've got a ton of visa gift cards, too.

Is it really unethical though?  There don't appear to be any real terms to the offer.  It's coded as 30% off your first autoship order per account, so the question is whether there is anything unethical about signing up for multiple accounts.  I didn't see anything prohibiting that, skimming the terms of use.  They also let you do it with the same name/address, so that seems like tacit blessing.  On the other hand, it appears their gross margin is around 20-something% so they are likely losing money on it (unintentionally) which makes me feel bad since I don't bear them any ill will.  I guess as long as they are in the black on the transaction I wouldn't feel bad about doing it, but given how steep the discount is perhaps it's wrong.  You could try to buy enough per order that they at least break even.

[DadJokes]

Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.

Chewy is one company that I'm not a fan of using unethical means to get discounts from. They (usually) have the best prices and have stellar customer service. They're known to send flowers if customers cancel their autoship because their pet passed. We had a snafu with food being sent to the wrong address after we moved. They sent another shipment for free, no questions asked. When the first shipment was re-routed to us a couple weeks later, they told us to keep it or donate it to a local shelter.

[Roadrunner53]

I agree with DadJokes. I ordered an expensive flea collar from Chewy and I bought the wrong size. The can it came in was not opened so I called to return it. They told me they would refund my money and for me to donate it possibly to an animal shelter. I ended up donating it to Vietnam Vets so someone in need could use it for their dog. I also get some pet prescriptions from them and one of them had a significant price increase. I did find another source that was less expensive and called Chewy and asked if they would price match. They told me they don't do that but they would, for one time only, give me the prescription for the price I had paid the previous month. Another time I bought some dog treats and my dogs both refused to eat them. It was pretty expensive, like $34. I called to express my disappointment and they refunded my money. I gave the treats to the dogs groomer. She has large dogs who are chow hounds. Chewy also has very fast delivery. Really good company.

[lexde]

Hey- I’m not saying you should do it, I’m not saying I do it, just answering the thread. :-)

[dragoncar]

Hey- I’m not saying you should do it, I’m not saying I do it, just answering the thread. :-)

I’m thinking they were responding to me because I was actually weighing doing it

[Cranky]

I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.

Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary.  If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)

Or... your spouse could have taken all those free textbooks and made a little cash on half.com...

Theoretically, of course.

Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses.  Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use.  I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester.  I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired.  And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition.  Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same.  And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff.  Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc. 

Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way.  I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out.  Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content?  Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use. 

I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching.  This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources.  The cost of journals has skyrocketed.  Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.

Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.

[nancyfrank232]

5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes

[Dicey]

5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes

A bridge too far, IMO, lol.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes

A bridge too far, IMO, lol.

Lol, indeed. At some point we reach robbing a bank, and it just gets silly ;-).

[Dragonswan]

"Ah yes it's a maximum of $20 discount, which is useless because I'm a baller who easily spends $5k on a bag of dog food."

That's because most people are feeding pets not cultivating tender Wagyu dog for dragon fire roasting.

OK, I'll see myself out.

[GuitarStv]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

[SwordGuy]

Saw this today and thought it appropriate for this thread:

"Make sure to bring up politics at Thanksgiving this month to save on Christmas gifts."

[stoaX]

Saw this today and thought it appropriate for this thread:

"Make sure to bring up politics at Thanksgiving this month to save on Christmas gifts."

You're a genius!  If it works, I will post my results in the "share your badassity" forum. 

[dragoncar]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case.  Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support

[RyanAtTanagra]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case.  Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support

But if you deserved it, you're just wasting people's time and tax payer's dollars trying to find a technicality to weasel out of it.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, that's where the 'unethical' part comes in.  Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserve to get is like failing to pay child support.  You might get away with it and save money . . . but it doesn't mean you should.

[dragoncar]

Yeah, that's where the 'unethical' part comes in.  Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserve to get is like failing to pay child support.  You might get away with it and save money . . . but it doesn't mean you should.

I suppose saying you deserved it is begging the question here.  Correct me if I’m wrong but I presume you mean someone deserves a speeding ticket if they were speeding.  In my opinion, however, someone speeding doesn’t necessarily have an ethical obligation to accept the ticket if their speed was reasonable and there are procedural issues with the ticket.  In other words, they do not deserve it (which I realize contradicts your premise).

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case.  Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support

But if you deserved it, you're just wasting people's time and tax payer's dollars trying to find a technicality to weasel out of it.

I don’t consider it a waste of taxpayer money to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions.  It is a disservice to our justice system to allow officers to write tickets without proper justification, even if the crime was in fact committed. 

For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted?  In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check.  Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed. 

[nancyfrank232]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

Our in laws do this for us. They tie the ticket up in court and in our jurisdiction, after 2 years it’s thrown out (if they didn’t get it thrown out earlier)

I guess some retired senior citizens still need projects to do

[GuitarStv]

For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted?  In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check.  Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.

It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally.  I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.

However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in).  So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.

[dragoncar]

For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted?  In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check.  Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.

It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally.  I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.

However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in).  So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.

I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.

A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case.  You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea.  You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam).  The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).

I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine.  It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals. 

To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath.  I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have.  Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.

[ChpBstrd]

For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted?  In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check.  Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.

It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally.  I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.

However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in).  So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.

I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.

A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case.  You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea.  You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam).  The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).

I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine.  It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals. 

To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath.  I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have.  Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.

I would happily accept a 30 minute ass chewing from a judge for $300 or so. “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

[Sugaree]

I imagine you could use 50 year old textbooks for math classes.  I had a three courses in calculus, and by the time I took the third, they were on a new issue of the book.  The only difference was the homework problems were in a different order.  That textbook was over $50 when I bought it in 1986.  What a rip off.

I took the calculus series and the book changed the semester between Cal II and Cal III.  My school was at least nice enough to phase the new book into use.  So the first semester only the Cal I class required the new book.  The next semester the Cal II class also required the new book.  The next semester all three classes had to have the new book.  In theory, everyone should have only had to buy one book.  I'm not sure how they handled it when people failed or dropped and had to retake the class. 

[GuitarStv]

For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted?  In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check.  Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.

It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally.  I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.

However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in).  So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.

I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.

A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case.  You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea.  You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam).  The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).

I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine.  It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals. 

To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath.  I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have.  Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.

Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve.  Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical.  You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.


There's nothing wrong with demanding due process . . . but if you're guilty of the crime you are charged with, lying and saying that you're not guilty is an immoral thing to do.

[Boofinator]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.

Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.

[GuitarStv]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.

Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.

If you're not behaving unethically (lying about guilt) to get the discount, I don't think there's any issue with fighting a ticket.

[BlueHouse]

Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.

I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.

Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.

If you're not behaving unethically (lying about guilt) to get the discount, I don't think there's any issue with fighting a ticket.

I have fought many tickets over the course of my life and won all but one.  I've been guilty on all, but felt for whatever reason the rules didn't apply to me.  During college, I lived in the most dangerous city in the country.  It was really bad.  I worked nights as a server.  I routinely drove through red lights (if safe to do so) and drove the wrong way up one-way streets.  I explained to the judge why I did it and he agreed with me that he would have done the same. 

More recently, I got a speeding ticket (uncommon for me) and I argued the fee and had it reduced.  Around here, you can get $500 speeding tickets and I just feel that's excessive.  The judges seem to think so too. 

The most recent ticket was for zooming through a red light.  I just didn't see it at all.  No idea what I was concentrating on, but it scared the bejeezus out of me that I didn't even notice.  Not only did I return to the scene of the crime to ensure I knew what to look for so I didn't do it again, I gladly paid the full amount because I wanted this to hurt me financially.   But this was the only time that I've ever felt that the punishment fit the crime.

[TomTX]

Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve.  Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical.  You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.

Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Davnasty]

Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve.  Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical.  You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.

Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent [in the eyes of the law] until proven guilty"

That part is assumed. Are you saying someone breaks the law retroactively the moment it's proven?

[GuitarStv]

Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve.  Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical.  You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.

Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

[TomTX]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

[Boofinator]

I am going to jump on GuitarStv's team on this discussion. Sure, there are some crimes that are not entirely clear on a number of different levels, but most crimes are pretty damn clear (like murder).

The dilemma the law faces is that most people who commit crimes are unethical to begin with, so it cannot allow for a person's ethics to be a factor in their plea. Hence, innocent until proven guilty. However, the ethical behavior at the time one pleas during arraignment does affect the sentencing phase, indicating that the law does consider the ethics of how one pleads (even if one's ethics only amounts to not carrying on a lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

[GuitarStv]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

Let me get this straight.  You are driving in your car.  You see the posted speed limit.  You drive faster than the limit.  You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket.  But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?

You really think that way?

[DadJokes]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

Let me get this straight.  You are driving in your car.  You see the posted speed limit.  You drive faster than the limit.  You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket.  But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?

You really think that way?

How about this example:

I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.

My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.

[GuitarStv]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

Let me get this straight.  You are driving in your car.  You see the posted speed limit.  You drive faster than the limit.  You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket.  But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?

You really think that way?

How about this example:

I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.

My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.

I've got no problem with you going into court, saying that you broke the law, and then arguing that a law is stupid (and hopefully getting a reduced fine or whatever because of your argument).  Lots of laws are stupid.  But you know that you broke the law.

You only really get into an ethical problems when you lie and say that you didn't (ie, pleading not guilty when you know that you are guilty).

[Boofinator]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

Let me get this straight.  You are driving in your car.  You see the posted speed limit.  You drive faster than the limit.  You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket.  But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?

You really think that way?

How about this example:

I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.

My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.

Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.

So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.

[aloevera]

I know that retirement account assets aren't considered for FAFSA but the contributions from the prior year are considered untaxed income and count toward the EFC just like your taxed dollars do.

Actually it’s now prior-prior. So you’d need to plan for one more year back.

Also, colleges that ask for the CSS Profile will get all into your assets, some colleges even ask what kind of car you drive....

[dragoncar]

Guitarstv, you are using a laypersons dictionary in discussion of legal concepts.  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)

An offense has a factual aspect “did you drive faster than the posted speed limit?” And a legal aspect “do these fact amount to breaking the law?”.  As stated I agree it’s unethical to lie about facts.  But pleading of not guilty is not a statement of facts.  It is more akin to saying “prove it”

[TomTX]

No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea!  But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you.  If you committed a crime, you know that you did it.  There's no need for proof to yourself.  Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.

I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.

I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.

Let me get this straight.  You are driving in your car.  You see the posted speed limit.  You drive faster than the limit.  You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket.  But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?

You really think that way?

Who says the speed limit was set legally?
Who says the speed study was performed correctly?
Who says the sign met notification requirements?
Who says the sign was placed in the proper location?
Is there a history of racial/gender/etc discrimination in enforcement?
Did the officer actually measure the wrong vehicle?
Was the equipment out of calibration or used outside approved parameters?
Et cetera.

I'm not a lawyer. There are tons of reasons the speed limit or its enforcement might not be legal at all.