I do agree that if you are guilty, just pony up the money and move on. I have received one speeding ticket since 1969, and that was in 1981. I was driving an unfamiliar vehicle (Lincoln) and my speed got away from me. I paid the fine.
Fast forward to two incidents in the past 10-12 years that I have personal knowledge, because I was a passenger both times:
(1) Friend was driving 65/55 on a rural highway. We round a bend, and he sees a CHP has pulled over another motorist. I suggest that he slow down, because often here where there is one, there are more than one. Just past the officer, he drops his speed to 57/55. About 3 miles later, still driving 57ish, a CHP zooms up behind him and pulls him over. He pulls over, and gets cited for speeding--62 I think. I had noticed the tags on the first CHP vehicle (I wrote them down) and the tags on the vehicle driven by the officer who pulled him over did not match. My friend decides to fight the citation. He gets discovery on both vehicles and the officers who were assigned to them and the citations they issued that day. The second officer pulled my friend over two minutes after the time of day that was recorded on the citation issued by the officer that we passed originally.
The officer who issued the citation told a story to the judge about how he had clocked my friend at 64-65 while getting back into his patroll car. Once my friend showed the judge the discovery about the two different officers and the other citation issued to the other motorist, the judge cleared the courtroom. When we returned the officer was gone, and the judge dismissed the citation due to perjury.
(2) Another friend and I were driving back from the Bay Area one night. On a rural road he kept his speed at 54-55 (55 is the limit.) Out of the blue a car races up behind him and tailgates. My friend slows to 50 to let the driver pass, but the driver continues to tailgate. (The road was deserted; plenty of space to pass safely.) My friend then speeds up to 58, and the car behind speeds up too. This goes on for about 90 seconds to two minutes. Finally, my friend is tired of this jerk behind us, so he accelerates to 64. Wham! The red lights go on.
He pleads not guilty. The officer testifies that observed a speeding vehicle back down the road and gave chase. My friend cross-examines him like Perry Mason with a question like, "Officer, suppose I were to show the Court my video camera's recording of the three minutes leading up to your traffic stop. What conclusion would the judge come to about your entrapment?" The officer recanted everything, and my friend's case was dismissed. The judge called my friend up to the bench and told him off the record that this was not the first time this sort of entrapment technique had been revealed in his courtroom.
Yes, both my friends were speeding. In the first story he is clearly guilty of speeding, but the CHP did not play by the rules established in our criminal justice system. While two wrongs do not make a right, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and the CHP did not meet the burden of proof. In the second story, the old police chestnut of entrapment was unfairly used to goad a driver into committing a driving infraction.
This is just my opinion--if we are to have a reasonably efficient functioning legal system for all crimes, whether infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies, the individuals charged with enforcing the laws must be above reproach in performing their duties. Anything less weakens the system and erodes the public's perception of law enforcement's credibility.
