5 ms·

Jumping through hoops -- a system of checks and balances -- is fine and good. When those checks and balances check out, so to speak, I want my law enforcement

by toki5 13y ago

Jumping through hoops -- a system of checks and balances -- is fine and good. When those checks and balances check out, so to speak, I want my law enforcement agencies able to do their job efficiently. This is a case of making that process -- the post-warrant process, after checks and balances have played out -- easier.

betterunix 13y ago
One would think that the police are already able to do their jobs efficiently, since we have the largest prison population on this planet. What this proposal is about is making it easier for the police to gather evidence, because as we all know, leaving their desks and actually working to catch criminals is just asking too much of them. It is precisely the same argument that was made for CALEA: demanding that the police actually go into the field and attach wiretapping equipment to phone lines is making it too hard to catch criminals, so we "must" make it possible to execute wiretap orders without even leaving their chair. The checks and balances are weakened every time we make the police "more efficient." Again, the point of making the government, police included, inefficient is to thwart those who would try to establish oppressive systems. Making the police more efficient makes it easier for unjust laws to be passed and enforced.
- jfoutz 13y ago
  Meh, i think it's more about having to many stupid laws. Lying to a federal agent is 5 years, even if you don't know they're a federal agent? that's madness. I think your approach of making everything hard, really just makes government expensive. The flip side, looking for fewer and more specific crimes frees up a bunch of resources to do the job well.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Meh, i think it's more about having to many stupid laws. Lying to a federal agent is 5 years, even if you don't know they're a federal agent? that's madness." Sure, but such laws must be enforceable, and they must be enforceable with the resources available to law enforcement agencies. We have a lot of stupid laws, but over the period of time where those lose were passed we also increased the power and authority of the police. "I think your approach of making everything hard, really just makes government expensive." Thus making it accountable to the citizens, as those expenses must be paid for with tax money (or debt, which is just a way to postpone tax collection). Eventually people start to complain about the poor funding for education, healthcare, parks, and other things. Eventually, the limited tolerance people have for government spending begins to catch up with law enforcement (though we are nowhere near that point). Of course, for the past few decades, we have taken the alternative approach: prioritizing law enforcement over civil rights and reducing or eliminating the obstacles to law enforcement.

by toki5 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

One would think that the police are already able to do their jobs efficiently, since we have the largest prison population on this planet. What this proposal is about is making it easier for the police to gather evidence, because as we all know, leaving their desks and actually working to catch criminals is just asking too much of them. It is precisely the same argument that was made for CALEA: demanding that the police actually go into the field and attach wiretapping equipment to phone lines is making it too hard to catch criminals, so we "must" make it possible to execute wiretap orders without even leaving their chair. The checks and balances are weakened every time we make the police "more efficient." Again, the point of making the government, police included, inefficient is to thwart those who would try to establish oppressive systems. Making the police more efficient makes it easier for unjust laws to be passed and enforced.

jfoutz 13y ago
Meh, i think it's more about having to many stupid laws. Lying to a federal agent is 5 years, even if you don't know they're a federal agent? that's madness. I think your approach of making everything hard, really just makes government expensive. The flip side, looking for fewer and more specific crimes frees up a bunch of resources to do the job well.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Meh, i think it's more about having to many stupid laws. Lying to a federal agent is 5 years, even if you don't know they're a federal agent? that's madness." Sure, but such laws must be enforceable, and they must be enforceable with the resources available to law enforcement agencies. We have a lot of stupid laws, but over the period of time where those lose were passed we also increased the power and authority of the police. "I think your approach of making everything hard, really just makes government expensive." Thus making it accountable to the citizens, as those expenses must be paid for with tax money (or debt, which is just a way to postpone tax collection). Eventually people start to complain about the poor funding for education, healthcare, parks, and other things. Eventually, the limited tolerance people have for government spending begins to catch up with law enforcement (though we are nowhere near that point). Of course, for the past few decades, we have taken the alternative approach: prioritizing law enforcement over civil rights and reducing or eliminating the obstacles to law enforcement.