Make-criminal Programs
Make-criminal programs
Intervention Orders, and allegations of "domestic violence", are great money makers for a large portion of the law enforcement establishment. These may be the most irrational and illegitimate of examples, since they are recognized by scholars and the public as assuming guilt, with little possibility of proving innocence.
This is a make-criminal program. Chasing innocent people trying to make them into criminals is much safer and produces more impressive statistics than actually investigating those committing real crimes.
Police departments make the point that "domestics" are the most dangerous calls they must respond to. In the past, before the make-criminal programs, that was certainly true. Individuals in domestic disputes were often highly emotional and easily prone to violence.
The officers' presence was as often a calming influence as an instigating influence. Most commonly now, the officers are facing someone who has no intention of violence.
Now, the assumption is that the man is always the guilty party, even if he is showing physical signs of injury and abuse. That makes it much easier. The officer simply arrests the man, or swears out an Intervention Order against him and removes him from the premises.
If there is no indication of physical violence, then the officer simply swears out an Intervention Order against the man, and passes responsibility to the courts.
The officers' statement is adequate evidence that the man is guilty. That saves the court time.
The officers, on the other hand, have not had to face anyone truly prone to violence.
And a few court clerks and lawyers get paid, then pay taxes.
This make-criminal program effectively makes it illegal to argue in a relationship.
Sophistication and Profits
Police departments are becoming more and more sophisticated in developing make-criminal programs because they are money-makers. They make the police and government look like they're combatting crime, but really they're just dealing with law-abiding citizens.
Law-abiding citizens are much easier to deal with than real criminals or career criminals, after all.
These programs are, by their nature, more intrusive in the day-to-day affairs of ordinary people.
A couple of examples are the anti-smoking campaigns and speed cameras.
Although I agree that there should be areas that are free of smokers, the decision cannot be made into a law. It is up to the discretion of the owners of the establishment, responding to the needs and requests of their patrons.
Speed cameras set to 3 km over the posted speed limits are reasonable in school zones and residential areas.
However, on open roads, highways and freeways, that standard is ridiculous. For one thing, most of us learn to drive with the flow of traffic.
A group of cars going 77 km/h in a 70 km/h zone are safe. To photograph and then fine them all is ridiculous. It's a make-criminal program. If you disagree with the fine, you're a criminal.
At 95-100 km/h, a tap or twist of the foot can take you over the 103 km/h speed. Any number of ordinary actions -- talking to other passengers, caring for a child, etc. -- can make a foot twist.
Yet you're fined over $120.
The records show that the heavy fines do not significantly enforce complaince, only avoidance. On any trip on a highway while driving at or below the speed limit, you can watch other cars zooming past you as if you were parked.
Make-criminal programs only produce distrust and resentment. That's the easiest way to recognize a make-criminal program.
In this case, the police are completely safe. No officer is required at the scene. Yet these fines are very profitable.
Sometime soon I'm sure we'll see on-the-spot orders for euthanasia.
God help the poor bastard that can't afford the legal representation to fight the order.
But it will make money for the lawyers to fight it, and finally for the hospitals who will execute the order.
But more than that, there is the savings to society.
If make-criminal programs can make it illegal for a man to argue with his partner, it isn't that much further to simply rid society of the expense of the disabled and elderly who are alleged to be beyond cure.
There will not be enough superannuation to support the baby-boomers when they retire. There have been too many economic downturns, and the credit crunch will have to be paid off someday. Two numbers say it pretty well: The average Australian has less than $27,000 in superannuation, yet has over $125,000 in debt -- and both are going in the wrong directions.
Why should the young healthy taxpayers of Australia pay for payouts, then years of treatment for those who will never be able to pay taxes again?
It's only fiscal responsibility.
And that's the reasoning behind the anti-smoking laws, isn't it?
Another example we can look forward to from the same reasoning is the anti-obesity program.
There are all sorts of interesting financial and political advantages here. It may be possible to fine fast food restaurants, from MacDonalds and Burger King down to the local fish and chips shop, for subjecting the public to greasy food.
There are tremendous opportunities here for financial advantage.
We have a excise tax coupled with the GST on gasoline to help reduce emissions and pay for clean up programs - and to build more roads -, why not an excise tax on any food item with more than 15g of fat? The GST is already applicable, so GST would be applied to the excise tax there too.
In addition, there could be fines for those who are found to have too much fat in their foods. On the spot citations for those who purchase food from MacDonalds would be immensely profitable.
And who could argue with such pro-active, positive efforts by the government?
Is this sort of thing so far away?
The government could forbid schools from selling fast-food items in their canteens; as in government buildings. Oops, that's already in place!
It's meant the end of dozens of private enterprise canteens already, but that's not really a problem.
Once the costs to society of fatty foods is established, and that effort is already underway across Australia today, then the next step is to tax or fine those businesses who don't comply.
Another make-criminal program that's profitable and safe to enforce.
A recent article in three national papers showed that the average Australian already works half the year for the government, not counting incidental fines. There's an interesting correllation with the domestic violence industry, too: Why is it that with so much more tax and effort, the problems only get worse?
Someday soon, a program like "What's Good for You?" may be a daily reference for everyone to see what they can do day by day to avoid taxes and fines.
Intervention Orders, and allegations of "domestic violence", are great money makers for a large portion of the law enforcement establishment. These may be the most irrational and illegitimate of examples, since they are recognized by scholars and the public as assuming guilt, with little possibility of proving innocence.
This is a make-criminal program. Chasing innocent people trying to make them into criminals is much safer and produces more impressive statistics than actually investigating those committing real crimes.
Police departments make the point that "domestics" are the most dangerous calls they must respond to. In the past, before the make-criminal programs, that was certainly true. Individuals in domestic disputes were often highly emotional and easily prone to violence.
The officers' presence was as often a calming influence as an instigating influence. Most commonly now, the officers are facing someone who has no intention of violence.
Now, the assumption is that the man is always the guilty party, even if he is showing physical signs of injury and abuse. That makes it much easier. The officer simply arrests the man, or swears out an Intervention Order against him and removes him from the premises.
If there is no indication of physical violence, then the officer simply swears out an Intervention Order against the man, and passes responsibility to the courts.
The officers' statement is adequate evidence that the man is guilty. That saves the court time.
The officers, on the other hand, have not had to face anyone truly prone to violence.
And a few court clerks and lawyers get paid, then pay taxes.
This make-criminal program effectively makes it illegal to argue in a relationship.
Sophistication and Profits
Police departments are becoming more and more sophisticated in developing make-criminal programs because they are money-makers. They make the police and government look like they're combatting crime, but really they're just dealing with law-abiding citizens.
Law-abiding citizens are much easier to deal with than real criminals or career criminals, after all.
These programs are, by their nature, more intrusive in the day-to-day affairs of ordinary people.
A couple of examples are the anti-smoking campaigns and speed cameras.
Although I agree that there should be areas that are free of smokers, the decision cannot be made into a law. It is up to the discretion of the owners of the establishment, responding to the needs and requests of their patrons.
Speed cameras set to 3 km over the posted speed limits are reasonable in school zones and residential areas.
However, on open roads, highways and freeways, that standard is ridiculous. For one thing, most of us learn to drive with the flow of traffic.
A group of cars going 77 km/h in a 70 km/h zone are safe. To photograph and then fine them all is ridiculous. It's a make-criminal program. If you disagree with the fine, you're a criminal.
At 95-100 km/h, a tap or twist of the foot can take you over the 103 km/h speed. Any number of ordinary actions -- talking to other passengers, caring for a child, etc. -- can make a foot twist.
Yet you're fined over $120.
The records show that the heavy fines do not significantly enforce complaince, only avoidance. On any trip on a highway while driving at or below the speed limit, you can watch other cars zooming past you as if you were parked.
Make-criminal programs only produce distrust and resentment. That's the easiest way to recognize a make-criminal program.
In this case, the police are completely safe. No officer is required at the scene. Yet these fines are very profitable.
Sometime soon I'm sure we'll see on-the-spot orders for euthanasia.
God help the poor bastard that can't afford the legal representation to fight the order.
But it will make money for the lawyers to fight it, and finally for the hospitals who will execute the order.
But more than that, there is the savings to society.
If make-criminal programs can make it illegal for a man to argue with his partner, it isn't that much further to simply rid society of the expense of the disabled and elderly who are alleged to be beyond cure.
There will not be enough superannuation to support the baby-boomers when they retire. There have been too many economic downturns, and the credit crunch will have to be paid off someday. Two numbers say it pretty well: The average Australian has less than $27,000 in superannuation, yet has over $125,000 in debt -- and both are going in the wrong directions.
Why should the young healthy taxpayers of Australia pay for payouts, then years of treatment for those who will never be able to pay taxes again?
It's only fiscal responsibility.
And that's the reasoning behind the anti-smoking laws, isn't it?
Another example we can look forward to from the same reasoning is the anti-obesity program.
There are all sorts of interesting financial and political advantages here. It may be possible to fine fast food restaurants, from MacDonalds and Burger King down to the local fish and chips shop, for subjecting the public to greasy food.
There are tremendous opportunities here for financial advantage.
We have a excise tax coupled with the GST on gasoline to help reduce emissions and pay for clean up programs - and to build more roads -, why not an excise tax on any food item with more than 15g of fat? The GST is already applicable, so GST would be applied to the excise tax there too.
In addition, there could be fines for those who are found to have too much fat in their foods. On the spot citations for those who purchase food from MacDonalds would be immensely profitable.
And who could argue with such pro-active, positive efforts by the government?
Is this sort of thing so far away?
The government could forbid schools from selling fast-food items in their canteens; as in government buildings. Oops, that's already in place!
It's meant the end of dozens of private enterprise canteens already, but that's not really a problem.
Once the costs to society of fatty foods is established, and that effort is already underway across Australia today, then the next step is to tax or fine those businesses who don't comply.
Another make-criminal program that's profitable and safe to enforce.
A recent article in three national papers showed that the average Australian already works half the year for the government, not counting incidental fines. There's an interesting correllation with the domestic violence industry, too: Why is it that with so much more tax and effort, the problems only get worse?
Someday soon, a program like "What's Good for You?" may be a daily reference for everyone to see what they can do day by day to avoid taxes and fines.
posted by Unknown at
10:01 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home