4 ms·
The entire common legal system is set up in a way that is the exact opposite of this. Everyone is breaking the law all the time. It's suppose to be the case tha
by x5n1 11y ago
The entire common legal system is set up in a way that is the exact opposite of this. Everyone is breaking the law all the time. It's suppose to be the case that unless someone complains about something expressly, that the government is suppose to mind its own business. This is no longer the case in the United States. The State has created many different departments to go after people when no reported crime has been committed. And then it continues to overreach on this using totalitarian information systems. The logic of the system keeps becoming more totalitarian.
It makes sense that if some harm keeps getting committed then someone should do something about it. But if that's not the case, then it does not justify any action from the government. Like in Mexico the drug war, sure go after the major drug kingpins using totalitarian systems. But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible.
- rayiner 11y ago> But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible. Petty criminals and small time crooks are often the ones that make life hardest for people, especially the poor who live in the neighborhoods where these guys operate. When I lived in Wilmington, DE (a pretty run down post-industrial city), our favorite restaurant was run by an elderly Indian couple. But it was in a terrible neighborhood, and one day their house was broken into. These sweet, hard-working people were violated, and by who? Not some kingpin. By some "small time crook." Should he not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
- x5n1 11y ago> unless someone complains about something expressly Would cover your case.
- rayiner 11y agoYou don't think people complain about people dealing drugs out of their neighborhood? 80-90% of people support keeping all drugs besides marijuana illegal.
- x5n1 11y agoI don't disagree with your assertion that people complain, and I don't disagree that when people complain the police should look into it. I don't agree on massive dragnets going after thousands of people in the name of fighting crime who might be only peripherally involved with the situation.
- count 11y agoYou mean a pharmacist? I'm pretty sure most folks like having a pharmacist close by....
- Godel_unicode 11y agoThe inverse of your implication that smaller crimes should be less prosecuted is that merely being accused of a more serious crime means you have fewer rights. Keep in mind that we have the precedent of innocent unless proven guilty in the US, so the suspected drug kingpin, terrorist, or serial killer is just as innocent as the suspected bubble-gum thief.
- x5n1 11y agoI don't know I can't find it in my conscience to justify scumbags that are well known to be scumbags but use criminal syndicates to hide their crimes. For instance the mafia uses smaller gangsters to commit crimes and then hide behind those. I can't get myself to condone that, there is nothing to stop people like that then through totalitarian systems.
- Godel_unicode 11y agoThe situation you describe is the precise reason that the United States has the RICO act[1]. Prove that someone is involved in a scumbag organization (insert legalese for "scumbag" here)and they're guilty just like the person who committed the crime. Our system, while admittedly imperfect, prioritizes protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty (obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's the core) 1-http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html