Thread: Crime

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Not really. To many criminals it's all about the chase, the thrill, the chance you won't get caught. many of these guys are addicted to a life of crime. They can no more change than a hardcore drug addict can quit.

Thats why Prisons are often times called correctional facilities right?

So, then we should have pity on them because they are addicted to performing destructive acts. Acts that often hurt average people like you and me, should just be ignored because the poor criminal has a hard time not doing it?

The poor pyro really likes to watch things burn so we should be nice to him, because he had a really hard time not burning down that hospital? Or apartment building full of people? Or a restaurant that the owner needs running to take care of his family?

Originally Posted by honedright

As far as plain clothes units, unmarked cars, fingerprints and DNA, I think only criminals need worry about those.

+1 if your not breaking the law you don't have to worry obout it.

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

+1 if your not breaking the law you don't have to worry obout it.

I'm not sure that's true. After all, a lot of these things have an over arching affect on the general public. An example I can think of here is the new laws on controlling BB guns, they're ridiculously complicated and have had an impact on that sport.

Beyond that, I think most people break the law at some point or another, I'm not suggesting we all become armed robbers for a weekend, but even so, people do it. I think the role of the police has started to become catching people out, rather than just a presence in a community reminding people of their social responsibilities.

Here in Munich/Bavaria police shows an exreme presence. It is no secret, that police traditionally acts more strictly here, then in other areas of Germany. My opinion about this? Well, I don't live in a gang area, but there are certain people in my neighbourhood I would not look for an argument with, so I have nothing against somebody "to serve and to protect".
But in reality, things look different:
During the last years, the numbers of police patrols and surveillance camera have been dramatically increasing, but to be honsest, there is no benefit visible for me, despite the increasing loss of private sphere: In the last time, several people have been beaten to death on street (during daylight) in Munich. Where was the police? Almost everybody I know, has been beatenon open street and been seriously injured just without any reason. Police?
What I see is, that there is a big hunt on people riding their bicycles too fast or carrying ridiculously small amounts of marihuana, real crime, like rapism or violence is not really prevented.

My ex girlfriend was once concerned about a strange guy from the subway, who seemed to follow her. She asked a policeman, if he could walk the last 200 metres to her home, just in case, but the officer refused to do so. Great Gentleman!

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

+1 if your not breaking the law you don't have to worry obout it.

Definitely not the case!

Here in the UK, our government has a terrible track record of losing personal data. Ministers, MPs, Whitehall officials have all done things like leaving their phone in a pub toilet, or a laptop with 10,000 names of at-risk children, or 100,000 names and addresses of parents of children receiving child benefit, etc. etc. The stuff that ID theft is made of, and worse.

So, given the ineptness of the government and its staff to safeguard our private information, I'd say I personally have a lot to worry about, even though I don't commit crimes.

If they had my DNA, that would worry the hell out of me. If they lost that and it found its way into the wrong hands, wow, I'd be screwed. And they do take your DNA whenever possible to "rule you out of the investigation" possibly. Thing is, they refuse to remove all dead leads, i.e. you can be perfectly innocent and never be able to remove your DNA from their (highly unsecure) database.

SO it's there forever to be misappropriated at the next opportunity, maybe by ID thieves, or worse by health insurers who will use it against you when you try to buy a policy.

Don't even get me started on the fact that the UK has the greatest saturation of CCTV per square mile....

Originally Posted by majurey

Don't even get me started on the fact that the UK has the greatest saturation of CCTV per square mile....

The most watched nation in Europe.

it's not just the insecurity of the data, but the fact, like you say, that they can keep it for as long as they like whether you're guilty or not.

In any over-policed state, even the innocent have a lot to worry about.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I'm not sure that's true. After all, a lot of these things have an over arching affect on the general public. An example I can think of here is the new laws on controlling BB guns, they're ridiculously complicated and have had an impact on that sport.

Beyond that, I think most people break the law at some point or another, I'm not suggesting we all become armed robbers for a weekend, but even so, people do it. I think the role of the police has started to become catching people out, rather than just a presence in a community reminding people of their social responsibilities.

Exactly how I feel. The way I see it, I shouldn't get nervous when there are police around. Are they going to take offense to the way I'm driving, perhaps my knife clipped inside my pocket, or maybe I fit the description of every white man in America that's done something wrong. Not to say I'm scared of them, but being nervous is enough. Once you've been mistreated by the police, you'll never trust them again.

Originally Posted by honedright

Don't they have just as fair a shot of not getting caught as they have of getting caught? I know, they have a choice to, or to not commit a crime - that's about as fair a shot as it gets.

As far as plain clothes units, unmarked cars, fingerprints and DNA, I think only criminals need worry about those.

I agree with you on all counts. The only aspect that has always concerned me, however, is what the government may be able to constitute as a "criminal" in the future. If Homeland Security couldn't be viewed alternatively as seed sown in preparation for a change in who is viewed as a "criminal" I don't know what could be.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's. At that time, someone who was vocal about making it very clear that they loved their country and their fellow citizens but loathed and despised the government and believed the citizenry should be watching the government very very carefully IMO would have been viewed differently than they would be today and probably much differently than they would be in the future.

I don't know about others, but I do not believe the United States of America and the government of the USA are synonymous. The country is composed of the land and the people. The government is the government.

Chris L

Originally Posted by gregs656

I wonder, how many people think criminals should have a fair shot at not getting caught.

That statement is speaking of something entirely different than innocent people in trouble of false accusation or them having info on you for all eternity.
That statement suggests that criminals, regardless of crime, just criminals in general should have a better chance at getting away with what they have done.
A fair shot for the other side is great when we're dealing with sports or a game, but people that steal or murder or rape(criminals) should get no help in not getting caught.

Originally Posted by WongKonPow

That statement suggests that criminals, regardless of crime, just criminals in general should have a better chance at getting away with what they have done.

I think they should have a fair shot at it, yes. I think society needs some level of crime. I think that anything other than 'a fair shot' just ends up not only corrupting the people protecting the innocent, but also has a negative impact on those they are protecting.