[tptacek]

I'm really not sure what the rules of evidence have to do with your right to a jury trial in the adjudication of a small fine.

(There are places where you do have a right to full trial over a traffic fine, but you wouldn't want to avail yourself of that right).

[mindslight]

They're both examples of the same general phenomenon - complexity-induced contradictions eroding our rights.

[tptacek]

I'm pretty sure the concept of petty or mechanical offenses for which you aren't entitled to a jury predates the Constitution, so I'm not sure I see the erosion.

[mindslight]

I'm pretty sure the concept of offenses for which you weren't entitled to due process precipitated the Constitution.

I also don't see how a ~$1k punishment for a slight speed infraction is "petty".

[tptacek]

If that were the case, why hasn't contempt of court ever required a jury trial?

[mindslight]

Because judges have an abundance of faith in their judgment being balanced, and so presume themselves autocratic?

Historic violations don't really counter my point - even in the past the map was not the territory. Finding one non-erosion (by virtue of it never have been applied) doesn't change the rights that have eroded.